[Senate Hearing 110-1102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1102
CONSIDER PENDING NOMINATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
THE PENDING NOMINATIONS OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND LYLE LAVERTY, TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
__________
JULY 17, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gpo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-976 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
------
Note: During the 110th Congress, Senator Craig
Thomas, of Wyoming, passed away on June 4, 2007. Senator John
Barrasso, of Wyoming, joined the committee on July 10, 2007.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 17, 2007
OPENING STATEMENTS
Warner, Hon. John, W., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Virginia....................................................... 1
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho....... 3
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 6
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 8
Voinovich Hon. George, V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio... 12
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia..... 13
.................................................................
WITNESSES
Svinicki, Kristine, L., nominee for Member of U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.......................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 16
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 17
Senator Cardin........................................... 17
Senator Voinovich........................................ 18
Laverty, Lyle, nominee for the position of Assistant Secretary
for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior.. 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 23
Senator Boxer............................................ 23
Senator Lieberman........................................ 28
Senator Cardin........................................... 29
Senator Inhofe........................................... 30
Senator Voinovich........................................ 31
Survey Summary, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Union of Concerned
Scientists..................................................... 41
CONSIDER PENDING NOMINATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Carper, Whitehouse,
Warner, Voinovich, Isakson, Craig, and Barrasso.
Senator Boxer. The committee shall come to order. I am very
pleased to welcome one of the senior members of this committee,
a great Senator, John Warner. I thought, just given your
schedule, Senator, before other Senators speak, I would love
for you to introduce Kristine to the committee.
Senator Warner. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Perhaps the
distinguished Ranking Member might like to make a remark or two
and then I will proceed.
Senator Boxer. All right, well, it was his idea to say you
should go first.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. It was my idea, I thought you might want to
join us up here in your regular position. Since Kristine was a
staffer for you, I understand, as well as for Senator Larry
Craig, I knew you had some comments you wanted to make and this
might be a good time to go ahead and do that, if you would
like. I am sure Senator Craig will want to make a comment or
two about Ms. Svinicki also.
Senator Boxer. Senator Warner, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I am extremely pleased to be here this morning. All of us
have these opportunities. This one I particularly look forward
to, because this is one of the extraordinary persons that I
have been privileged to serve with my now 29 years here at the
U.S. Senate. She was on the staff of the Armed Services
Committee following service with our distinguished colleague,
Senator Craig, for well over 2 years. She is also a resident of
my State, and for that reason, in addition to her career, I am
happy to be here.
She was a senior policy advisor to Senator Craig. I
interviewed her at that time for the position on our staff.
Senator Craig warmly endorsed her and it all worked out
extraordinarily well. Not well known in some quarters, but the
Armed Services Committee has jurisdiction over approximately
two-thirds of the budget of the Department of Energy, including
the very sizable nuclear weapons production sites and
laboratory complex as well as the extensive environmental
program to clean up the legacy of nuclear contamination created
during the cold war era. These are programs which we engaged
Kristine to work on with our staff.
With her extensive background and experience in nuclear
matters, both at the Department of Energy and subsequently in
her work in the Senate, she ably discharged her
responsibilities, very, very ably, I might say. Her service has
been appreciated not only by me, but by the other members of
the Armed Services Committee, including our distinguished
Ranking Member of this committee.
I recall the first interview with this outstanding nominee.
She informed me a little bit about her family, and I would like
to mention that, because it strikes me as the very pillars of
the foundation of our great Nation, what her family did. Her
grandfather had come from their native country of Slovakia in
the early part of the last century. He worked off the cost of
his passage in the iron mines of Michigan's upper peninsula. He
saved up enough money to bring his wife and daughters to
America, and Kristine's father was born in this country after
the family was reunited in Michigan.
Ms. Svinicki's father served with distinction in the Army's
Fifth Infantry Division in Europe during World War II, earning
two Bronze Stars for distinguished valor in combat. The service
secured for him the opportunity to attend college under the
G.I. Bill, the first in his family to do so.
I mentioned to the nominee when she greeted me this morning
that I was going to tweak her a little bit. In these 2\1/2\
years, I expect you have been in my office probably 30 or 40
times. On the wall is a picture of my father, who served in
World War II, likewise wounded and decorated--excuse me, in
World War I. He served in the Fifth Division, and you never
told me about the story of your father having succeeded my
father in the Fifth Division.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. Now, following in her father's footsteps,
she went on to college, choosing to major in nuclear
engineering at the University of Michigan. I inquired of her
during the first interview as to why she would have majored in
nuclear engineering in college. I recall that she commented to
me that because she had lost both of her parents when she was
still quite young, a teenager, she had wanted to honor their
memories by cherishing the value they held highest, which was
education in the sciences.
Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee, this is a very
able nominee of the President. I urge the committee to confirm
this nominee and send her name to the floor, where I will be
privileged to once again address the Senate on your behalf.
Good luck.
[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:]
Statement of Hon. John W. Warner, U.S. Senator from the
Commonwealth of Virginia
Madame Chairwoman, I am pleased to introduce to the Committee the
nominee to serve as Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--
Ms. Kristine Svinicki (Suh-ven-e-key). Ms. Svinicki is both a long time
resident of my State, and a staff member on the Senate Armed Services
Committee, which I have had the privilege to serve on for over 28
years.
I was first introduced to Ms. Svinicki, then a Senior Policy
Advisor for Senator Larry Craig, when I interviewed her for a position
on my Armed Services Committee staff in December of 2005, as I needed
someone to take on the nuclear issues for the committee after the
departure of another capable staff person.
It is not well known in some quarters, but the Armed Services
Committee has jurisdiction over approximately two-thirds of the
Department of Energy--including the very sizable nuclear weapons
production sites and laboratory complex, as well as the extensive
environmental program to clean up the legacy of nuclear contamination
created during the Cold War. These are the programs which I hired
Kristine to staff. With her extensive background and experience in
nuclear matters both at the Department of Energy and subsequently in
her work here in the Senate, she has ably taken on this challenge. Her
service has been appreciated by not only me, but the other members of
the Armed Services Committee--on both sides of the aisle.
I recall in that first interview that I asked Ms. Svinicki about
the origin of her last name. She informed me that her grandfather had
come to this country from his native Slovakia in the early part of the
last century and that he had worked off the cost of his passage in the
iron mines of Michigan's upper peninsula. He saved up money to bring
his wife and daughters to America, and Kristine's father was born in
this country, after the family was reunited in Michigan.
Ms. Svinicki's father served with distinction in the Army's Fifth
Infantry Division in Europe during World War II earning two bronze
stars for distinguished valor in combat. His service secured for him
the opportunity to attend college under the GI Bill, the first in his
family to do so.
Following in the her father's footsteps, Ms. Svinicki went on to
college, choosing to major in nuclear engineering at the University of
Michigan. When I inquired with Kristine, during that first interview,
as to why she would have majored in nuclear engineering in college, I
recall that she commented to me that because she had lost both of her
parents when she was still quite young--a teenager--she had wanted to
honor their memories by cherishing the value they held highest--which
was education.
Madame Chairwoman, Kristine Svinicki will be a favorable addition
to the Commission and she has my full support. It is my hope that both
the committee and the Senate will move favorably and quickly to approve
her nomination, as the seat she is nominated to fill is currently
vacant and I believe we all support having a Commission at full
strength (of five commissioners).
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator Warner.
Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF IDAHO
Senator Craig. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. I have
the unique opportunity this morning of being amongst friends on
both sides of me here, and very talented people. But I am here
specifically to introduce you to Kristine Svinicki, who, as
Chairman Warner has said, served on my staff as a senior policy
advisor for 7 years prior to going to the Armed Services
Committee. You have heard a good deal of her background.
I must tell you, when you can get the support of the
diversity of a Craig, a Warner and a McCain in your person, I
think that speaks fairly highly, because we are all very
different people around here. But I would like to approach her
nomination to you this morning, Madam Chairman, in this way. I
don't know of another time in our country when we need on the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission some very unique talents.
As you know, from the establishment of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 until today, when there was not one nuclear reactor
on the drawing board, there are now some 35 or 37. Clearly, for
this country to get back into the business of building nuclear
generating reactors, in a way that our country and our economy
demands it, we are going to need a very strong Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. The personalities that make up the
Commission, I believe, are going to have to be multi-task
capable.
What do I mean by that? They are going to have to have
background in the nuclear energy industry itself, they are
going to have to have knowledge of it. They are also going to
have to have knowledge of the public policy that we have shaped
to drive that industry at the rate that it appears to be driven
today. The new concepts of licensing that we are trying to
perfect, not unlike other countries around the world have, that
bring us back into this business, are going to be tremendously
important. Kristine brings that uniqueness to the Commission.
She has worked here on the Hill, she has worked in policy, she
has helped shape a good deal of that policy while she was with
me before she went over to the Armed Services Committee with
Senator Warner.
All of those experiences, I think, are very unique
combinations that make her a highly qualified person. So when
the President nominated her, I was, to say the least, very
pleased and excited. Sure, to have somebody who had been on my
staff is a pleasing kind of thing. But I have been under the
evil eye of Kristine for a long while.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Maybe that is a better way of saying it. No,
no, I mean the very instructive, clear-thinking eye of Kristine
for a long while, who would say it the way it was in a very
frank and forthright manner, in a way that was always
appreciated by me while she was working with me on the
committee and on my personal staff. So when I look at those
combinations, and having been somebody that has helped shape
the policy that is now driving us in a direction that takes us
from the 104 commercial reactors that are out there today that
she would have immediate jurisdiction over and the 4,000-plus
licensees that handle radioactive materials in our country. But
to take it a step further and into a whole new generation is
going to take the uniqueness of talent that I think Kristine
has, has demonstrated to me and is a blend of those
experiences.
So I speak very highly of her to this committee and hope,
as Senator Warner does, that we can handle her expeditiously
and take her to the Senate desk for our consideration.
Last, let me say that my experience with Lyle Laverty, who
sits to my immediate left here, as the Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks, has been a tremendously positive
one over the years. I don't know of anyone who brings to this
nomination the credentials that Lyle has. I highly recommend
him. He and I worked on the Continental Divide National Trail
System. We have worked on fire issues over the years. The West
is burning today, maybe you ought to be out fighting fire,
Lyle, and not here in front of this committee. But it is the
nature of the process.
So I certainly can recommend both of these people with
their skills and their talents to this committee without
reservation. Again, I feel very privileged to be here speaking
on Kristine's behalf as it relates to the position she is
aspiring to. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Well, Senators Craig and Warner, thank you
so much. Kristine, you must be so honored. You have two just
really notable Senators who have just spoken so beautifully of
you. You should be very, very proud.
I want to talk to both my colleagues here for a minute. You
can all listen in on where I see we are in this whole
situation.
Senator Reid has a great interest, Senator Craig and
Senator Warner, of course, in what happens on the NRC. We all
do. He is particularly concerned because of Yucca Mountain. You
all know that, regardless of where we stand, it is in his State
and Senator Ensign's State. Now, he has been trying to get Greg
Jaczko renominated by the President since April. My own belief,
because I want to get this done, is I'm looking at a pairing
here, because Greg Jaczko has been on there and Harry Reid
feels very strongly.
The reason there was a little give and take on-off in where
we were going is that I decided I am excited about this nominee
too, and I want to give her her chance, and I want to get her
on there with you. But I also understand the fact that in this
Commission, we just need some balance here. So I think we have
the makings of making this happen really quickly, if you can
help me with the White House, because we have not, as I
understand it, heard a word back since Harry Reid made this
renomination in April.
So I, just because, in the interest of openness and
fairness and honesty, I want you to know that this would be
very helpful, if we could get both of these good people
together. So I wanted to say that.
Senator Craig. Madam Chairman----
Senator Boxer. I will be happy to yield.
Senator Craig. If you would, please.
Senator Boxer. I would be happy to.
Senator Craig. I am simply seeking instruction from you as
to how we proceed here----
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Craig [continuing]. With Ms. Svinicki's nomination.
How would you plan to handle that, hold a hearing? Would you
plan to move her, if it is the desire of the committee, to the
full Senate committee?
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Craig. With the understanding that she would not
move until the other issue were resolved, or what is your plan?
Senator Boxer. Well, I want to work with you. I want to
work with Senator Warner, I want to work with Senator Inhofe,
Senator Voinovich, if he is interested in this, and Senator
Reid.
Senator Craig. Sure.
Senator Boxer. I want to do this in a way where everybody
wins this thing. Because I have absolutely no interest in
delaying 1 minute on this nomination.
But the reason I wanted to have this hearing today was to
get us started. We will all work together to determine how we
will do this. Now, as I say, Senator Reid made this nomination
in April. Mr. Jaczko isn't up for a while, but there is
precedent for this in many cases in the past. This is so
important to Senator Reid that I think we need to work with
him. There is no reason why we can't make this all happen.
This isn't anything that I consider to be that unusual. We
have had situations before where both sides work together. So I
wanted to get that out on the table.
Senator Craig. I appreciate your work.
Senator Boxer. I have every interest in getting them both
done as quickly as possible.
Senator Inhofe. Madam Chairman?
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. I am sorry I was out of the room when this
conversation started. I guess I overheard that somehow this
might be paired with Jaczko who, it is another year before he
even comes up. Is there precedent for that?
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. I do not recall that.
Senator Boxer. Yes, there is--we will give you the
precedents in writing. We don't have them in writing right now,
but we will give you the precedents in writing for that.
Senator Inhofe. OK. I just think that, on behalf of the
minority, it is a very, very significant position that needs to
be fulfilled, and we have such a quality individual. I would
hate to see that happen.
Senator Boxer. Well, we don't intend to hold up either of
them. I am just trying to work with the White House and with
all of you so that we can get this done. That's the facts. I am
the kind of chairman that, I want to be totally open with
everybody. Because what happens on these commissions, as you
know, is that we have diversity on these commissions. Senator
Craig made a point, that Kristine has worked for him and John
Warner and John McCain, and it has made every--it says a lot
about you that you can do that.
Well, these commissions also have different points of view
on them, and it is very important to Senator Reid. Senator Reid
was once chair of this committee and gave it up to go into the
leadership. He is very interested in this NRC as is Senator
Ensign.
So in any case, here is what I intend to do. After we have
this hearing, I hope we can huddle on the floor with Senator
Reid and figure out a way to move all this and get it done. But
let me make my opening statement, because these two positions
are so important to all of us. So let me put out a few
concerns, not about the individuals but about the issues you
will face.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Today the Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works meets to consider the nominations of Mr.
Laverty and Ms. Svinicki to be Commissioner for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and Mr. Laverty, Secretary of Interior
for Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
Mr. Laverty, the position to which you are nominated is so
important, and I understand you are a California native. So I
welcome you. As you know, California is a State rich in
biodiversity sand stunning natural beauty. I hope, if you are
confirmed for this position, you will always remember what is
at stake for California and all of America's natural treasures.
Because truly, Californians and all Americans live in a Nation
blessed with spectacular public lands and a rich array of
wildlife, which I consider to be God-given, and it is our role
to protect.
Yet despite the richness we have been given, we have seen
an unprecedented assault on our Nation's wildlife laws,
conservation system and the science that underpins them. From
silencing scientists to gutting our successful conservation
laws to underfunding our public lands, I believe there have
been many occasions where this Administration, and this is my
view, I certainly don't speak for anybody else who is here
presently, is breaching the public trust owed to America's
natural heritage, instead of honoring its duty to serve as
effective stewards.
Indeed, in April of this year, the then-Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Julie McDonald,
resigned following an investigative report of the Inspector
General of the Interior Department. In that report, the
Inspector General revealed, among other things, how that
official leaked non-public information to special interests
that had a stake in the outcome of the Fish and Wildlife
Service decisions.
The IG report also describe how this senior official, and
these are the IG's words, ``got into the face of'' Fish and
Wildlife Service personnel over their 5-year Endangered Species
Act reviews. This kind of bullying of career scientists and
policy experts cannot be tolerated.
Additionally, recent news reports have documented how the
Vice President personally intervened in the important
Endangered Species matter. Reportedly, he rode roughshod over
the process and the expert opinions of Department scientists in
order to influence the decision on the water flows to the
Klamath River, something I am sure you are aware of, and I am.
As a result of this political intervention, the Department
reportedly reversed course, and thousands of salmon died on the
Klamath. We will never forget those pictures. This ecological
disaster greatly affected our fragile rural economies that
depend upon those species for commercial and recreational
fishing business and related industries in the State of
California and the Pacific Northwest.
There are similar reports of White House officials editing
EPA's scientific documents about global warming. I feel very
strongly that the Government must honor the science and not let
politics override the facts. It is fine for politicians like
any one of us or the President or the Vice President to simply
say after they see a scientific report, you know what, that may
be so, but I think it will hurt the country if this happens,
but not to try and interfere in the report itself.
We must recognize, as hundreds of the world's leading
scientists on the U.N. Governmental Panel on Climate Change
recently found, that 40 percent of the planet's species are at
risk of possible extinction from global warming. We had a
scientist sitting right in your chair, and said that to us. Mr.
Laverty, I was stunned when she said that. It is a staggering
thought, and one of the most important issues, Mr. Laverty,
that you will have to face if you are confirmed.
In this position, you will be thrust into the middle of
many crucial challenges and clashes between science and
politics. All I ask you to do is let us see the science. We
will deal with the politics. We have to, we will. But let us
see the science. We must use the best science to protect our
rich, God-given heritage. We owe it to our children and our
grandchildren.
Ms. Svinicki, the NRC has so many important issues to be
considered. I feel after I have heard from your two colleagues
that you are very well prepared to face any of them. One key
issue facing the NRC is nuclear waste disposal and plans to
transport it to Yucca Mountain. Protecting the public health is
so crucial, and in my view, Yucca fails the test. My State of
California is one of the most affected by the Yucca Mountain
project, which is only 17 miles from California's border.
People forget that.
Studies have shown that the groundwater under Yucca
Mountain flows into Death Valley, one of the hottest and driest
places on Earth. If radiation should contaminate this
groundwater, it would be the demise of the national park and
the surrounding communities.
The threat posed by the nuclear waste transport is also
clear, and I would ask for another minute and would happily
give it to Senator Inhofe. The threat posed by nuclear waste
transport, over 7.5 million people live within just a mile of a
possible nuclear transport route. Yucca's geology remains a
concern.
So I will put the rest of my statement in the record about
Yucca. I would say also, I would close with this one issue. The
GAO recently completed a sting operation in which the NRC
issued a materials license to a fake corporation in West
Virginia. Once GAO received the license for their fake company,
they altered it, so it appeared that the company was allowed to
receive an unlimited quantity of radioactive sealed sources,
rather than the small amount that had been approved by the NRC.
After altering the license, GAO was able to receive commitments
from suppliers of Category 3 sealed radioactive sources to
provide more than 10 times the materials the original license
would have allowed.
I have serious concerns about the NRC's ability to ensure
that these licenses are not going to individuals who want to
attack us. I understand that there is a delicate balance
between ensuring that legitimate users, like hospitals and
construction companies, they get what they need. But certainly,
we need to do a lot better.
So I am going to ask you a couple of questions about that.
But again, having worked for Senator Warner, whose life has
been dedicated to national defense, I have a feeling you will
be diligent on that.
So thank you very much, both of you. I wish you the best of
luck and I will turn the microphone over to Senator Inhofe,
with additional time.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. That is fine. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I
do appreciate it.
I guess I will direct this opening comment at Mr. Laverty.
I too am one who will be looking into science all the way
across. It is kind of interesting when those individuals who
really want to believe that anthropogenic gases cause climate
change, when the evidence now from the recent scientific
community refutes that, and that natural variability is causing
it, it is kind of interesting, you see panic on the other side.
People like Claude Allegre, who was one of the strongest
supporters of anthropogenic gases causing climate change, from
France, perhaps considered by some to be the top scientist in
France, now saying, I was wrong, he is saying that these are
other causes and we need to reexamine. The same with David
Bellamy from the United Kingdom, the same with Nir Shariv from
Israel.
So we have literally hundreds of scientists who totally
refute that any dramatic change is due to the release of man-
made gases. Also, I would say that while I consider the
Chairman to be a very close personal friend, we joke around a
lot with each other, I do not agree with her characterization
of the Administration and their performance.
I am pleased we are holding a nomination hearing today.
This committee has a longstanding bipartisan tradition of
considering nominations in a timely fashion. Nominees, I say to
my good friend Senator Craig, have historically been given an
up or down vote by the committee the week following the
hearing. I am sure Senator Warner will remember that has been
the tradition of this committee, and I am hoping we will be
able to do that.
The first nominee before us is Lyle Laverty, who is being
considered for the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and
Parks at the Department of Interior. Mr. Laverty has a long,
distinguished record of resource management, which has well
prepared him for this position. He has actually had 35 years as
a career employee at the U.S. Forest Service, and then more
recently serving as the director of the Colorado State Parks.
So I can't think of anyone in America today, anyone, who could
be as qualified as Mr. Laverty.
The second nominee today is Kristine Svinicki. I have no
doubt that she will be an excellent commissioner at the NRC.
She has proven herself to be knowledgeable on technical matters
and also possesses a deep understanding of policy issues. If
that is not enough, Senators Craig, Warner and others, she has
been in a top notch position with them and they are happy to
give support to her.
Ms. Svinicki, you and I discussed my belief that our Nation
needs new nuclear plants to help meet our growing demand for
energy. Revitalizing this industry is a complicated effort and
the NRC's role in ensuring public health and safety in
protecting the environment is an integral part. Safety first
isn't just a cliche, it must be the top priority. However, the
NRC must also carry out its responsibilities in a predictable
and efficient manner. Balancing these objectives will be quite
challenging for the Commission to consider in the growing
number of applications for new plants it will receive over the
next few years.
I think we have for now, I guess 12 years, my personal
experience on this committee, we have talked about the fact
that we can't really resolve the energy crisis in this country
without a big nuclear part. Certainly, you have the credentials
to address that.
Madam Chair--oh, you can stay there, I just want to be sure
you are listening to my opening statement here. They talk about
the, Madam Chairman, the outrage over the allegations that a
DOI political released internal documents to industry groups, I
think specifically the Farm Bureau. The fact is, I remember so
well back in the late 1990s, just this past March, Fish and
Wildlife career staff leaked a draft ESA regulation to the
media, then circulated by the Center of Biological Diversity.
In 2005, a draft of the National Park Service management
policies were leaked. I didn't see or hear all the outrages
about that. The DOI Inspector General report of 1998 and 1999
oil leases was released to The New York Times 2 days before the
IG was to testify. The released document, the decision to
propose listing the polar bear, appeared first in The
Washington Post before officially released by the Department.
So those leaks have been occurring over a period of time. By
the way, I don't know what your order of things would be, Madam
Chairman, but we have our newest member, Senator Barrasso,
here, and I would like to have an opportunity to welcome him.
Could I do that at this time?
Senator Boxer. Absolutely.
Senator Inhofe. OK, Senator Barrasso, there is no one, as
you have heard so many times since you have been here, who is
more loved than your predecessor, Craig Thomas and his tenure
on the committee. Alan Simpson actually also served on this
committee, and Senator Barrasso joins us after having served as
Chairman of the Transportation, Highway and Military Affairs
Committee in the Wyoming State Senate. I am sure your
contribution to this committee will be most valuable.
Under Republican Senate rules, Madam Chairman, since
Senator Barrasso selected this committee as one of his first
two choices, he will be seated in seniority between Senators
Vitter and Craig. As far as subcommittee assignments, that
isn't clarified yet. I will want a chance to visit with all of
our members, our Republican members, which is the ones that
would be concerned with this, so we can kind of get that
resolved. But we did have a reading from Dave Sharp that showed
that your seating here in terms of seniority is proper, and we
welcome you, Senator Barrasso, to this committee.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
I'm pleased we are holding this nominations hearing today. This
committee has a long-standing, bipartisan tradition of considering
nominations in a timely fashion. Nominees have historically been given
an up or down vote by the committee the week following their hearing. I
hope the Chairman continues this tradition and schedules a business
meeting to consider these nominees next week.
The first nominee before us is Lyle Laverty, who is being
considered for the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks at
the Department of the Interior. Mr. Laverty has a long and
distinguished record in resource management which has prepared him well
for this position. This experience includes 35 years as a career
employee of the U.S. Forest Service and most recently serving as
Director of Colorado State Parks for 6 years.
The second nominee before today is Kristine Svinicki, and I have no
doubts that she be an excellent commissioner at the NRC. She has proven
herself to be knowledgeable on technical matters and also possesses a
deep understanding of policy issues. If that's not enough, Senators
Craig and Warner say she is top notch so I'm happy to give her my
support.
Ms. Svinicki, you and I discussed my belief that our Nation needs
new nuclear plants to help meet our growing demand for energy.
Revitalizing this industry is a complicated effort and the NRC's role
in ensuring public health and safety, and protecting the environment,
is an integral part. ``Safety First'' isn't just a cliche it must be
the top priority. However, the NRC must also carry out its
responsibilities in a predictable and efficient manner. Balancing these
objectives will be quite challenging for the Commission considering the
growing number of applications for new plants it will receive over the
next few years and the long-awaited receipt of a repository application
next year. It is my expectation that, as a Commissioner, you will
endeavor to achieve an appropriate balance.
Recently, there have been lapses in the NRC's efforts to openly
communicate. Open communication is fundamental to maintaining the
public's trust and the trust of this committee. I encourage you to
learn from these mistakes. My door is always open and I hope you visit
often.
The nominees testifying before us are qualified individuals and I
hope they receive fair consideration based on their qualifications
rather than unrelated politics over which they have no control.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe,
Madam Chairman. I am very pleased to serve on this committee.
The issues that we deal with here are very important to the
State of Wyoming. Wyoming is the Nation's largest coal-
producing State, and it is a debate and role that we take very
seriously. In the Wyoming legislature, as you mentioned, I was
chairman of the Transportation Highways Committee with
jurisdiction over the highways. I am looking forward to working
with this committee on those issues of highway funding,
infrastructure.
Finally, not a day goes by in Wyoming when we don't talk
about the endangered species, Endangered Species Act. The law
continues to have a profound impact on the people of Wyoming.
We are very concerned about the environment, all of the issue
of public works. So I am looking forward to working hard with
you and following up in the great tradition of Senator Craig
Thomas.
Senator Warner. Madam Chairman?
Senator Boxer. Yes, Senator Warner, before I call on you, I
wanted to say something to our newest member.
Welcome. We welcome you here. We look forward not only to
getting to know you but your staff and this committee. I am
trying to bring a feeling that this isn't about partisanship,
because you know, the role that we play, and you pointed out
just some of the areas, from the environment to public works.
Originally when I came to the Senate, I thought, why do they
marry those two together? It seemed so strange. But at the end
of the day, I think they need to go together. Because in my
view, you take your State, the beauty of your State is really
the engine of your economy, the beauty of that State. To
preserve it and do it in the right way and allow the job growth
and the infrastructure to be built in the right way to
accommodate that is so key. So we really want to welcome you.
Senator Warner, do you want to add a word of welcome?
Senator Warner. I just wanted to say that this outstanding
individual who stepped up to take the place of our beloved
colleague we lost has such an engaging personality and
diversity of interests. I make a prediction here and now he
will be warmly received on both sides of the aisle.
Extraordinary man, and we thank you for coming.
Might I add a word on behalf of the nominee, Mr. Laverty?
Senator Boxer. Certainly.
Senator Warner. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to sit
down and visit with him. I thought, you know, another sort of a
perfunctory call on a Senator. But it turns out that both of us
started our careers in the Forest Service as young men, working
on the trails and fighting the fires and just loving the
national forests, all forests, for that matter. I am just
extremely pleased to see such a distinguished nominee from the
President to come up and take on this job.
But what perplexes me is why anyone would give up a job as
State Director of all the parks in one of the most beautiful
States to come down here and do this daily combat.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. Good luck to you, my friend.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Senator.
OK. Just to let you know where we are going here with
opening statements, we are now going to go to Senator
Voinovich, followed by Senator Barrasso, if he has an opening
statement today, followed by Senator Isakson. Then we will hear
from our distinguished nominees.
Senator Voinovich.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
John, I welcome you to this committee also. I think the
fact that Senator Barrasso has had experience on the State
level is very, very important. Too often I think that this
committee fails to recognize the relationship between what we
do on the Federal level to what is happening in our States.
John, we are looking forward to having that perspective brought
to our attention as often as possible.
I welcome our two nominees. Thank you for your willingness
to serve. I am sure my colleagues know, I am very interested in
the management of our Federal Government and its work force.
Finding the right people with the right skills to put them to
work at the right time and place is extremely important to the
future of our Nation.
The Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety has
oversight responsibility for the NRC. Madam Chairman, Senator
Carper and I are also very interested in the nominees to the
NRC. We think it is important. We need Ms. Svinicki on that as
soon as we possibly can, and maybe we can work something out
with Mr. Jaczko.
Senator Boxer. We are hoping so.
Senator Voinovich. The industry today, the nuclear
industry, is pursuing new power plants for the first time in
decades. I think the best information I have, we have proposed
28 reactors from 12 companies. At the same time, the Agency is
going to have to deal with a wave of retirements. More than 40
percent of the people who work there are eligible to retire. So
we are going to really need some attention in that NRC to human
capital.
I had the opportunity to meet Ms. Svinicki last week. We
had a frank discussion about her background and her regulatory
philosophy, the fact that she has had such glowing tributes
from Senator Warner and Senator Craig is also something that
all of us should take into consideration. I came away from that
meeting with her that she has the breadth and depth of
experience and energy in environmental policy as well as
nuclear technology that will serve her as a good member of the
NRC.
I think the fact that you have also had extensive
experience here in the Senate working for two distinguished
individuals also is going to give you insight into how this
place works. I think you will be a better member of the NRC as
a result of that experience.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator Voinovich.
Senator Barrasso, do you have an opening statement?
Senator Barrasso. No, Madam Chairman, but I did notice that
everyone else's name tag said Senator and mine said Mister.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Who is responsible, staff? That is an error.
We will make sure that is corrected.
Senator Barrasso. If it had said Doctor, Madam Chairman, I
would have understood.
Senator Boxer. I understand. We will make sure we correct
that.
Senator Isakson.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I too want to
welcome Dr. Barrasso, who is a very engaging, articulate
individual. As many old men as there are around the Senate, we
need another doctor in the house. We are glad to have you
today.
I have had the privilege of meeting both the nominees. Both
of them paid a visit to my office, I am very grateful for that
and had a great time talking to them. I have an acute interest,
as the members of the committee know from previous testimony,
in the nuclear issue and expansion of nuclear energy. I think
with the challenges that we have before us vis-a-vis climate,
carbon and all those things, the capacity of nuclear is the
best and most efficient that you can find to deal with those
issues. We need to do everything we can to promote it.
I too was very impressed with Ms. Svinicki in our interview
and I look forward to hearing the questions today and your
answers. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Why don't we start with you, Kristine, and please, if you
can summarize in 5 minutes, and we'll put the remainder of your
statement in the record.
STATEMENT OF KRISTINE L. SVINICKI, NOMINEE FOR MEMBER OF U.S.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you very much.
Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe and committee
members, it is an honor to appear before you today as the
President's nominee to be a member of the U.S. Regulatory
Commission. Even though Senator Warner has admonished me not to
be too humble, I will say that I am humbled by the kind words
and support of both Senator Warner and Senator Craig. Their
support of me far exceeds, in my view, any meager service it
has been my privilege to provide to them over the past 10
years. I am deeply grateful for the trust they have resided in
me as a member of their staff, and for the unique and wonderful
opportunities to serve that have accompanied that trust.
I also want to express my appreciation to the staff of this
committee for their professionalism and to my many colleagues
in the Senate. Although my family was not able to be here
today, I have many members of my Senate family here, and I
appreciate their support and encouragement.
I appreciate also the time of the committee members who
have met with me throughout this process to discuss this
position and my nomination. Hearing the views of the members of
this committee and of other Senators on nuclear policy is very
instructive to me. If I were confirmed, I would seek to
continue that communication.
In preparing for my appearance here today, I reviewed the
statements of previous Commissioners during their confirmation
hearings. I was struck by a common theme in their statements.
Each nominee stated their belief that they had been nominated
to the Commission at an unprecedented and uniquely challenging
moment in the Commission's history. I feel similarly both
honored and challenged by my nomination.
Over the next 2 years, in addition to its responsibility
for regulating the continued safe operations of nuclear
reactors and the many material licensees, the NRC expects to
receive, as has been referenced by committee members,
applications for new plants as well as applications to extend
licenses and to increase power output of existing reactors. To
meet this increasing workload, the NRC has embarked upon a
significant effort to increase the size of its technical work
force and to expand its office facilities. At the same time, as
has also been noted, the Commission will be experiencing the
retirement of many of its most experienced staff.
Throughout this very dynamic and demanding period, the
Commission and its staff must, in my view, not only maintain
regulatory stability but also strive to meet the performance
metrics the Commission has outlined for itself with respect to
the timeliness of reviews of new applications, while continuing
to hold itself to very high standards of performance. This
combination of operational and organizational challenges is
daunting by any measure.
If confirmed, I am eager to confront these challenges and
will commit myself fully to contributing to the continued
success of the Commission. Madam Chairman, I have worked in
Government service at the State and Federal level for nearly 20
years. While I honor the choice of those working in the private
sector, I have made a very different and conscious choice to
remain in public service. The work I have done in the Executive
and Legislative branches, in technical positions at the
Department of Energy, and subsequently as an advisor to
Senators here in the Senate has provided the opportunity to
participate in some of the most compelling energy,
environmental and national security challenges confronting the
Nation.
I believe that my career up to this point has prepared me
for the challenge of serving as an NRC commissioner. If the
Senate acts favorably on my nomination, I am eager to apply my
skills and experience in this new capacity.
In conclusion, I would note that the NRC is charged with
protecting the public health and safety, which I believe to be
a sacred trust between the people and their Government.
Consequently, the accountability of an NRC commissioner is
first and foremost to the public she serves. If confirmed by
the Senate, I would approach my duties as commissioner with
this as my core principle.
That concludes my statement, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Svinicki follows:]
Statement of Kristine L. Svinicki, Nominee for Member of U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission
Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe and Committee Members, it is
an honor to appear before you today as the President's nominee to be a
member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). I am humbled by
the kind words and support of Senator Warner and Senator Craig. Their
support of me far exceeds any meager service it has been my privilege
to provide to them over the past 10 years. I am deeply grateful for the
trust they have resided in me as a member of their staff and for the
unique and wonderful opportunities to serve that have accompanied that
trust.
I also want to express my appreciation to the staff of this
committee for their professionalism and to my many colleagues in the
Senate. Although members of my family are spread across the country and
were not able to be here today, I appreciate the presence of many
members of my ``Senate family''. Their support and friendships have
been the foundation of any achievements I have had during my service as
Senate staff.
I appreciate the time of the members of the Committee who have met
with me throughout this process to discuss this position and my
nomination. Hearing the views of the members of this committee, and of
other Senators, related to nuclear policy has been very instructive to
me. If confirmed, I would seek to continue this communication.
In preparing for my appearance here today, I reviewed the
statements of previous Commissioners during their confirmation
hearings. I was struck by a common theme. Each nominee stated their
belief that they had been nominated to the NRC at an unprecedented and
uniquely challenging moment in the Commission's history. I feel
similarly--both honored and challenged.
Over the next 2 years, in addition to its responsibility for
regulating the continued safe operation of the existing 104 commercial
nuclear reactors in this country and approximately 4,500 materials
licensees, the NRC expects to receive numerous combined license
applications for the construction of new nuclear power plants, as well
as additional applications to extend the licenses and to increase the
power output of existing reactors. To meet this increasing workload,
the NRC has embarked upon a significant effort to increase the size of
its workforce and to expand its office space. At the same time, the
Commission will be experiencing the retirement of many of its most
experienced staff.
Throughout this very dynamic and demanding period, the Commission
and its staff must not only maintain regulatory stability, but also
strive to meet the performance metrics the Commission has outlined for
itself with respect to the timeliness of review of new applications,
while continuing to hold itself to very high standards of performance.
This combination of operational and organizational challenges is
daunting by any measure. If confirmed, I am eager to confront these
challenges and will commit myself fully to contributing to the
continued success of the Commission in fulfilling its obligations to
the Nation.
I have worked in government service, at the State and Federal
level, for nearly 20 years. While I honor the choice of those working
in the private sector, I made a different and very conscious choice to
remain in public service. The work I have done in the executive and
legislative branches, in technical positions at the Department of
Energy and, subsequently, as an advisor to policy makers here in the
Senate, has provided the opportunity to participate in some of the most
compelling energy, environmental, and national security issues
confronting the Nation. I believe that my career up to this point has
prepared me for the challenge of serving as an NRC Commissioner. If the
Senate acts favorably on my nomination, I am eager to apply my skills
and experience in this new capacity.
The NRC is charged with protecting the public health and safety,
which I believe to be a sacred trust between the people and their
government. Consequently, the accountability of an NRC Commissioner is
first and foremost to the public she serves. If confirmed by the
Senate, I would approach my duties as Commissioner with this as my core
principle.
This concludes my statement. I look forward to your questions.
______
Responses by Kristine L. Svinicki to Additional Questions
from Senator Boxer
Question 1. What will you do as an NRC commissioner to ensure that
oversight of materials licensing is improved?
Response. I understand the Commission is looking at a variety of
ways to strengthen the materials licensing process including
consideration of site visits, web-based licensing systems, increasing
the tamper-proofing of licenses, and red teaming/testing the licensing
process. If confirmed, I would be eager to examine these proposals, as
well as others such as examining the required procedures before a
supplier ships a source to a license holder, as part of a comprehensive
evaluation of ways to improve the materials licensing process.
Question 2. The NRC does not require an inspection of the license
applicant prior to issuing a license for a Category 3 radioactive
sealed source. Other States, such as Maryland, have determined that
pre-license inspections are necessary. Do you think the NRC and
agreement States should have the same requirements?
Response. I have not been briefed on the current basis for the
differences in procedures between the Commission and the agreement
States in processing applications to possess Category 3 sealed sources.
If confirmed, I would examine the basis for these differences and
scrutinize the justification, if any, in light of the results of the
GAO investigation. Although States may have unique circumstances which
are reflected in their procedures, it would seem reasonable that best
practices, as were demonstrated in Maryland's process, should be
encouraged.
Question 3. Will you support pre-license inspections for Category 3
radioactive sealed source materials?
Response. I have not been briefed and consequently do not fully
understand the basis for not requiring pre-license inspections for
Category 3 radioactive sealed sources in non-agreement States. If
confirmed, I pledge to acquaint myself fully with this issue and take
part in Commission review of this requirement.
Question 4. Will you support and encourage the NRC's efforts to
create a web-based licensing system? If so, would you support including
Category 3 radioactive sealed materials into any such system created by
the NRC?
Response. If confirmed, I will support and encourage the timely
development and implementation of a web-based licensing system and will
evaluate further the inclusion of Category 3 radioactive sealed
materials into such system, as the Commission considers ways to
strengthen controls over these radioactive materials.
Question 5. I understand you have worked in the Department of
Energy's Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Office. As an employee
in that office, please explain what your involvement was in
transportation and waste disposal issues as they relate to Yucca
Mountain.
Response. Between May of 1994 to December of 1996, I worked as an
engineer in the DOE Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management,
Office of Storage and Transportation. The engineering position I filled
was responsible for collecting technical information related to
federally-owned radioactive waste, such as high-level radioactive waste
produced by defense programs, waste arising from the environmental
remediation of DOE cleanup sites, and spent nuclear fuel created in
research programs at DOE national laboratories, and assuring that
sufficient information on each of these waste forms existed in order to
evaluate the transportation and disposal of such waste, should such
waste eventually require deep, geologic disposal.
Question 6. What is your view on whether DOE and NRC should move
forward with the Yucca Mountain project as it is currently envisioned?
Response. As directed by Congress, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
requires the DOE to submit a license application to the NRC for the
establishment of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain and requires
the NRC to review and act on this application within 48 months of
receipt. If confirmed, I would support the NRC in fulfilling its
obligations under this law, which is to receive and process this
application in an objective and timely manner, on the basis of the
facts before it.
Question 7. Several applications for new nuclear facilities are
expected to be received by the NRC in the coming years. What role do
you see the NRC playing in addressing waste disposal issues that these
new facilities will face?
Response. In my view, the obligation of the NRC is to act as an
impartial arbitrator; making decisions based on the safety and security
of licensed activities while executing the roles assigned to it under
law. As I understand it, the Commission relies upon its confidence that
this country will continue to make progress on the development of
disposal capacity as called for in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. If
confirmed, I believe my duty would be to ensure that any waste
generated by a plant could be stored safely and without significant
environmental impact as the Nation works toward the implementation of
the waste disposal policies laid out in current law.
Question 8. Do you expect licenses for new facilities to be
approved regardless of the status of Yucca Mountain?
Response. If confirmed as a Commissioner, I would judge each
application coming before the Commission on its merits. Based upon my
experiences as Senate staff, I know that resolving nuclear waste
disposal issues is essential to the Nation. If confirmed, I believe my
duty would be to ensure that any waste generated by a plant could be
stored safely and without significant environmental impact during such
time as the Nation works toward the implementation of the waste
disposal policies laid out in current law.
______
Responses by Kristine L. Svinicki to Additional Questions
from Senator Lautenberg
Question 1. The transportation of nuclear waste could pose a
serious national security, environmental and health risk to the
communities which the waste passes through while transporting. How
would you evaluate these risks when making decisions about the future
of the Yucca Mountain application?
Response. As required under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act,
transportation of materials to a deep geologic repository must be
conducted in packaging developed and licensed to the NRC requirements
contained in 10 CFR Part 71. These standards require the evaluation and
analysis of the transportation packaging against accident, fire, and
flooding scenarios. The NRC also shares responsibility with the U.S.
Department of Transportation for the safe carriage of these materials
over the Nation's highways. If confirmed, I pledge to evaluate closely
the safety and security aspects of the transportation of nuclear
materials and to work closely with DOT to ensure that protecting the
public and environment remains paramount.
Question 2. The Oyster Creek nuclear facility in New Jersey will
turn 40 years old in 2009, and the re-licensing decision for this
facility is a very controversial issue. Would you give me your view on
the future of Oyster Creek, specifically, as well as how you would
approach re-licensing for older nuclear facilities?
Response. Although I am not familiar with the details of the Oyster
Creek application, in my view a similar question must be answered at
Oyster Creek and in all other license renewal projects: can this plant
be operated safely beyond its initial licensing period and on what
basis can we be confident that this safety is assured? This is a
decision that must be made on a case-by-case basis, impartially, under
the Commission's regulations, and on the available scientific evidence.
Safety should be the highest priority. If confirmed, I would pledge to
evaluate such matters based on the record before the Agency.
Question 3. The NRC has allowed radioactive waste to build up at
the Shieldalloy Metallurgic Corporation in Newfield and now plans to
allow them to leave 28 thousand cubic meters of radioactive waste at
the decommissioned site. Can you assure me that, if confirmed, you will
review this plan and work to have this radioactive waste removed?
Response. Although I am not familiar with the specifics of this
situation, if confirmed, I commit to familiarizing myself with this
plan and reviewing the adjudicatory record before the Commission.
______
Response by Kristine L. Svinicki to an Additional Question
from Senator Cardin
Question. We are all aware of the fact that GAO investigators
posing as businessmen in West Virginia were able to obtain an NRC
license which, once manipulated, allowed for the purchase of enough
radioactive material to make a dirty bomb. Investigators attempted to
purchase similar radioactive materials in Maryland, a State which has
its own licensing process. The GAO withdrew its application when the
State informed them numerous checks including an on-site interview were
needed before the license was granted. The process in Maryland was
shown to be decidedly more thorough than the NRC process. How will you
ensure that all 34 States that conduct their own licensing procedures
do so in a comprehensive manner that is commensurate with practices
which have proven successful?
Response. If confirmed, I would pledge to review the best practices
of all the agreement States and make sure they are communicated among
the agreement States. I would further work to understand the
differences between the procedures of the Commission and the agreement
States, and the justification, if any, for such differences. In my
view, Maryland should be commended for the vigilance it demonstrated in
overseeing the issuance of material licenses in its State.
______
Responses by Kristine L. Svinicki to Additional Questions
from Senator Voinovich
Question 1. One of the things that Senator Carper and I have been
stressing is the need for the NRC to improve and be more proactive in
its public relations efforts. The recent communication problems on the
part of the Agency associated with the GAO sting operation and the
spill of highly enriched uranium at a nuclear fuel facility do not bode
well to increase the public's trust in the Agency. I would like to hear
your thoughts on how a regulatory agency such as NRC can improve in
this area.
Response. Through public outreach and information initiatives, I
believe the NRC can strengthen its role both as a credible source of
information related to regulated nuclear activities as well as an
educator of the public more generally about regulatory processes and
radiological safety. While not a technology advocate, the NRC should
seek to increase public confidence by building greater awareness of its
inspection and oversight programs and by communicating its findings in
a clear and understandable manner to interested stakeholders and the
public in general. Further, the Commission must be prompt and
forthcoming, at all times, in its communications to the Congress.
Question 2. There has been a lot of talk of building new reactors
in this country. What do you think are the major road blocks to getting
these licensed and built? What would you do to try to help solve these
problems as a Commissioner?
Response. I believe that the principal challenges to getting new
reactors licensed and built are access to financing and credibility of
the regulatory process. The NRC is responsible for only one of these
challenges--the regulatory process. By completing its reviews in a
timely and transparent manner, the NRC will increase public confidence
in the regulatory process. As the NRC gains experience with the
regulatory process and timelines for new reactor applications that the
Commission has laid out for itself, I would pledge, if confirmed, to
continually review and seek to improve the Commission's internal
processes, while keeping safety and security always as the top
priority.
Question 3. You and I briefly discussed about human capital being a
significant challenge not only with the NRC but affecting both the
public and private sectors including the electric utilities, component
manufacturers, government agencies, and national laboratories. I am not
convinced, however, that government agencies and the industry are
taking the problem seriously enough. I am interested in any suggestions
you might have on how the government-industry-academia can work
together more effectively to meet this challenge.
Response. As outlined in the sober assessment of the National
Academy of Sciences report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm:
Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future,'' the
scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic
leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering
strength. The report makes a number of recommendations to increase
America's talent pool by improving science and mathematics education.
Through my current responsibilities on the Senate Armed Services
Committee staff, I am familiar with science and technology educational
programs initiated by the Department of Defense, reaching as deep as
middle school science programs and extending up to graduate
fellowships. The Department is currently gathering data on the
sustainability of the impacts of its outreach to middle school and high
school students. I am also aware that the NRC has authorities, provided
under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to fund scholarships and
fellowships in return for service with the NRC. Although I am not
familiar with the extent of NRC resources for these scholarship
programs, if confirmed, I would endeavor to continue to follow the
results of all of these programs, as well as others in government and
industry, with the intent of finding approaches to address this
strategic national vulnerability.
Question 4. Going forward, NRC's relationship with other Federal
agencies and State/local governments will be absolutely critical in
accomplishing its mission. I would like to hear your thoughts and plans
on how you intend to work at this issue.
Response. As demonstrated by both the attacks of September 11,
2001, as well as natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, our
Nation must improve its ability to marshal the entirety of our
government resources in response to events such as these. Reviews by
the Government Accountability Office and other commissions have found
uneven progress in this regard, and not on a pace sufficient for the
vulnerabilities we face. Although I have not been briefed on the
details, I am aware that the NRC is a part of operational drills and
government-wide exercises to test our preparedness and inter-agency
coordination. If confirmed, I would participate in these efforts with
the intent of strengthening this coordination and the mechanisms which
support it.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Mr. Laverty, why don't you go ahead, take us to a whole
other world for a moment, and then we will ask questions of
both nominees as each Senator wishes.
STATEMENT OF LYLE LAVERTY, NOMINEE FOR THE POSITION OF
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Laverty. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Inhofe and
distinguished members of the committee. It is truly an honor
for me to appear before you today as I seek your confirmation
to become the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish,
Wildlife and Parks.
I began my professional journey over four decades ago in
the mountains of northern California, along the Klamath River
in Orleans. It was there that I brought my new wife and we have
spent four decades together. My wife is able to join me here
this morning, as is my brother-in-law and my niece and nephew.
My nephew, Ryan Struck, is scheduled to be deployed to Iraq in
mid-September. So I am honored to have him here.
Senator Boxer. We would ask if they could all stand.
Mr. Laverty. Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. The young man who is going to Iraq, would
you just raise you hand. We say thank you, Godspeed, and we
will all do what we can to make sure that you are safe when you
are there and get home as fast as you can.
Mr. Laverty. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just a little bit of background. I completed my
undergraduate degree at Humboldt State with a Bachelor in
forest management and security, a Masters in public
administration from George Mason University. I am a registered
professional forester in California and a certified forester
with the Society of American Foresters.
As Senator Warner mentioned and Senator Craig, I have
worked across the country for the past 35 years as a career
employee with the U.S. Forest Service, and most recently, 5
years as the director of Colorado State Parks. Through a
variety of leadership assignments, I have really come to
develop a profound understanding of the importance of the
harmony and balance between good public resource policy and
successful management of America's natural resources.
In 1999, I led the Agency's effort to develop an integrated
strategy to develop a response to the hazardous fuel conditions
across the national forests. This strategy became then the
foundation of the National Fire Plan, which was in fact
supported by the Congress and funded after the catastrophic
fires of 2000. I was subsequently asked to lead the Agency's
implementation of that National Fire Plan and did so through
2001.
Since the enactment of the Endangered Species Act, I have
been involved in a variety of project design, implementation
and coordination of natural resource management activities that
truly integrate the protection of habitat with the goal of
recovering species. I say the goal of recovering species,
because that is a very, very critical part.
As a regional forester in the Rocky Mountain region, I
worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Division
of Wildlife in the recovery lynx. Ten years ago, I served on
the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, that we were involved
in the coordination of the activities to support the recovery
of the grizzly bear in the Yellowstone ecosystem. As a forest
supervisor of the Mendocino National Forest in California, I
worked with the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as the
Department of Fish and Game to manage that complex habitat of
the spotted owl, the southern portion of the spotted owl.
Madam Chair, if confirmed, I am going to commit my energy
to the stated purposes of the Endangered Species Act, to the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and those laws
and regulations supporting, under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. I will work aggressively with other
agencies, tribes and States, tribal land owners and other non-
governmental organizations to further our country's
conservation goals.
I am aware of the many challenges and unique opportunities
facing this position. I have read closely and studied the
Inspector General's report on the allegations associated with
Julie McDonald. One of the principal leadership
responsibilities of this position is to distinguish between
questions of science and questions of policy, and all of you
have articulated that very, very clearly. I believe that
science is the foundation of sound public policy.
I am committed to ensuring the scientific integrity is
maintained and scientific determinations are accurately and
clearly communicated to policymakers. I believe that leadership
is an active responsibility. As I worked with fire commanders
in my past, it is very, very clear that the importance of
presence is the essence of leadership. I believe that the
presence provides that forum for communications and
conversations to determine, are we doing what we said we would
do. Doing what we said we would do is the essence of trust, and
I am committed to earn the trust from you.
If confirmed, I have several actions that I want to share
with you that I will take. I will be happy to expand on these
in the questions. First of all, I would invite the solicitor
and the designated agency ethics officer to brief the entire
staff of this unit, to talk about the rules and regulations as
it relates to the protection and disclosure of information
received by that office.
Second, I will ensure that the staff understands the
importance and the difference between questions of science and
questions of policy. Third, I will establish a code of conduct
for employees to treat people with dignity and respect. It
became very, very clear to me in that report that that is one
of the fundamental roles of that position.
Fourth, I will actively engage with the Agency, in
conversations with agency leaders, both Director Bomar and Dale
Hall, and agency employees, and talk about performance
expectations. I will monitor performance. I believe that is the
function of leadership and it is the essence of what this
position is about.
Finally, I want to commit to work personally and closely
with all of you. I believe that being open and transparent in
terms of conversations to hear from you and what are the
concerns and also then be able to share with you what my
concerns are, I want to have that kind of a dialog and
relationship with you.
I am honored to be here, and I look forward to the
conversations and being able to answer any questions you might
have for me. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Laverty follows:]
Statement of Lyle Laverty, Nominee for the position of Assistant
Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the Interior
Madam Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Members of the Committee, I
am truly honored to appear before you today as I seek your confirmation
to become the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife
and Parks. As a career resource manager and public servant, the
opportunity to be entrusted with the care and stewardship of the icons
of America's heritage, is the ultimate experience. I want to thank both
President Bush and Secretary Kempthorne for their confidence in me as
shown through my nomination.
My personal connection with America's great outdoors begins in
Montana nearly 60 years ago. Born and raised in California, I have
vivid memories of our family adventures to Montana to visit my
grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins in Missoula. I remember to
this day catching my first trout in the crystal waters of Holland Lake.
I remember waking up in Yellowstone as my grandmother chased bears out
of our campsite banging on a big metal pot. I remember helping my dad
set up our tent in the floor of Yosemite. I remember the ranger hikes.
I remember watching the ``firefall'' during evening interpretative
programs. Little did I realize how significant these personal
connections would be in creating a lasting imprint on my being.
I began my professional journey in public service over four decades
ago in Orleans, California, a small rural mountain community. It was to
this remote ranger station on the Klamath River that I brought my bride
Pam, who has shared this wonderful journey and is with me here today.
Our two children, Lori and Chad, experienced lives growing up on ranger
stations as we moved throughout this great country.
I completed my undergraduate education with a Bachelor of Science
in Forest Management from Humboldt State University in Arcata,
California, and subsequently received a Masters degree in Public
Administration from George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. In
1997, I was selected to participate in the Executive Leadership Program
at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
I have worked across the country as a 35-year career employee with
the U.S. Forest Service and most recently as the Director of Colorado
State Parks. I have gained a rich understanding of the values of
America's natural resources and the importance of being a good steward
of these resources. I have had the opportunity to participate in many
assignments which have afforded my working with a broad range of
stakeholders and government officials on a variety of natural resource
management issues. Through a variety of line and leadership
assignments, I clearly understand the importance of harmony of sound
public resource policy with practical field operations.
In 1999, I was asked to lead a team to respond to the GAO Report
which identified the need for an integrated strategy to address the
hazardous fuel conditions on National Forest lands. The strategy became
the foundation for the National Fire Plan, funded by the Congress after
the catastrophic fire season in 2000. I was subsequently asked to lead
the Agency's implementation of the National Fire Plan and did so
through 2001. I mention my experience with the National Fire Plan,
because it models the importance and complexity of working with various
organization, agencies and jurisdictions to implement natural resource
policy issues on a consensus basis. To that end, I am committed to
working with each of you and the States to protect and promote our
nation's fish and wildlife conservation heritage.
Late in 2001, I accepted the position of Director of Colorado State
Parks. The Colorado State Park system is different than most State park
systems in America. More than 85 percent of the division's operating
budget comes from revenue other than general fund. Sustaining a quality
system of parks required the application of sound business principles
as well as consistently providing quality guest services.
I have enjoyed a professional journey that has provided broad and
extensive resource management challenges in. Through these varied
experiences, I have a combination of qualifications, perspectives and
insights that I believe will add value to an excellent team of
professional resource managers. Over the course of my career, I have
worked with individuals, volunteers, organizations, State agencies and
numerous Federal agencies. Living and working in both rural and urban
communities across this country, I have learned that solutions to
challenges facing our natural resources are developed through
conversations with all interested parties. The wonderful relationships
I have developed over the course the years has resulted in the support
of my nomination by a wide variety of organizations across the country.
My career has afforded me the opportunity to work in a variety of
communities and ecosystems across the country, in the Douglas fir
forests of northern California, the Cascades of Oregon and Washington,
the southern portion of California's Coastal Range, the great Rocky
Mountains of the intermountain west, as well as our nation's capital. I
have found through these experiences that people care deeply about
America's resources.
For over three decades, I have been involved in the design,
coordination and implementation of natural resource management
activities, integrating protection of habitat, and working towards the
recovery of species. As Regional Forester, I worked with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the State Division of Wildlife on the recovery
of the lynx in Colorado. Last year, Bruce McCloskey, Director of
Colorado's Division of Wildlife, proudly showed pictures of young lynx
kittens, successful indicators that agencies working together can make
a difference in the recovery of species. Ten years ago I served on the
Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, coordinating agency activities to
support the recovery of the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Today, that grizzly bear population has been delisted,
another indicator that agencies working together, seamlessly, with
public support, can make a difference in the successful recovery of a
species.
As Forest Supervisor of the Mendocino National Forest, I worked
extensively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff and the
California Department of Fish and Game in managing the complex southern
portion of the spotted owl habitat. As Associate Deputy Chief, I
coordinated policy implications of hazardous fuel treatment projects
with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service leaders. The results, evidenced on
the ground, demonstrate again that working together we can protect and
enhance habitat and protect people and resources by reducing the risk
of catastrophic wildland fire. Most recently, as the Director of
Colorado State Parks, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife staff and
Colorado Division of Wildlife staff, we designed and implemented
wildland fire mitigation projects in lynx habitat in the urban
interface of Colorado's Front Range, again working together to
effectively manage habitats for species recovery, as well as satisfying
multiple resource objectives.
Madam Chair, if confirmed, I will commit my energy to achieve the
stated purposes of the Endangered Species Act, the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System, and the laws and regulations under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I will work
aggressively with other Federal land management agencies, States,
tribes, private land owners and other nongovernmental organizations to
further our country's conservation goals. I am aware of the many
challenges and unique opportunities associated with this position. I am
committed to work closely with each of you to provide the oversight and
stewardship of the resources entrusted to me in this position.
Thank you again Madam Chair, Senator Inhofe, and Members of the
Committee for considering my qualifications and for the opportunity to
appear before you this morning.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Responses by Lyle Laverty to Additional Questions
from Senator Lautenberg
Question 1. As Assistant Secretary for the Department of Interior,
which oversees the Fish and Wildlife and Parks Service, what would you
do to ensure that science is not further suppressed or improperly
edited for political reasons?
Response. If confirmed, here are the actions I will take to ensure
that science is not suppressed or improperly edited.
Immediately, I will ask the Solicitor's Office and the Designated
Agency Ethics Officer to brief the staff on the rules and regulations
with regard to the protection of and disclosure of information received
by the Office.
I will affirm that discussion with my pledge to staff and employees
of both agencies, the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, reiterating my personal commitment to the ethical
standards of conduct and behavior articulated by Secretary Kempthorne,
including not sharing non-public information with outside parties.
Second, I will ensure that my staff understands the difference
between questions of science and questions of policy. I will explain
that my policy staff is not to ask for or direct any change or
modification in scientific findings by either agency.
I will explain that any contacts they have with field personnel at
either the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Park Service
regarding questions of science must and will be through established
organizational channels, and only with my prior approval. I will
actively monitor agency performance with and through both agency
leaders.
Third, I will establish a code of conduct for employees to treat
people with dignity and respect. Abusive behavior toward anyone will
not be tolerated.
Fourth, I will actively engage in conversations with agency
leaders, Directors Bomar and Hall, and agency employees to monitor
performance. I will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that
organizational performance is meeting expectations. I will make it
clear that:
Contact between my policy staff and agency personnel on
management or regulatory actions will go through established
organizational channels;
I expect bureau directors to personally ensure agency
decisions are supported with credible scientific information that, as
appropriate, is peer reviewed;
My policy staff is not to ask any of the agency staff to
change scientific findings;
No staff, policy or career, are to act abusively toward
any person, and if there is any indication of inappropriate behavior,
it is the Director's responsibility to inform me immediately;
Bureau directors are to personally advise their management
teams of my expectations for each of them regarding these principles;
and
Any violations of these principles are to be reported
immediately to me personally by the agency director for appropriate
action.
In the event of any violation of these principles, I will not
hesitate to ensure that appropriate action is taken.
Question 2. Will you commit to me that you will not participate in
any efforts to alter, edit or redact the work of scientists as
Assistant Secretary for the Department of the Interior? Will you commit
to report to this committee any actions that you see taking place that
violates the integrity of government scientists?
Response. In my previous answer, I provided my plan to ensure that
scientific integrity in our decisionmaking processes is protected. This
includes ensuring that my staff understands the difference between
questions of science and questions of policy. I will explain that my
policy staff is not to ask for or direct any change or modification in
scientific findings by either agency.
I will explain that any contacts they have with field personnel at
either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Park Service
regarding questions of science must and will be through established
organizational channels, and only with my prior approval. I will
actively monitor agency performance with and through both agency
leaders.
______
Responses by Lyle Laverty to Additional Questions from Senator Boxer
Question 1. The Fish and Wildlife Service recently removed both the
bald eagle and the Midwest grey wolf population from the list of
threatened and endangered species. This is one of the Endangered
Species Act's great success stories.
The Act defines an endangered species as one imperiled ``throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.'' But a recent Interior
Department opinion limits this test to ``the geographical area
currently occupied by the species.''
If that test had been used 35 years ago, wouldn't it have made it
difficult to protect species like the bald eagle and grey wolf, whose
``current range'' at the time was largely limited to Canada and Alaska?
Do you support that interpretation of the Act?
If you do support the new test, how do you square it with the clear
intent of Congress that the Endangered Species Act must protect species
like the bald eagle when they became endangered in places like
California and Maryland?
Response. I am not familiar with the recent Departmental opinion,
so I cannot speak to the characterization of it in your question.
However, I will commit to you that, if confirmed, I will review that
opinion and discuss its content and conclusions with our attorneys to
ensure that it fulfills the intent of Congress in enacting the
Endangered Species Act.
Question 2. The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
report concluded that 40 percent or more of all species may become
extinct if global warming continues and we reach a 4 to 5 C average
global temperature increase.
Do you accept the IPCC's conclusion that there is a 90 percent
certainty that most global warming over the past 50 years is human-
caused, and that global warming's impacts on wildlife are a major
concern? If confirmed, how would you address this issue?
Response. I acknowledge and respect the increasing scientific
knowledge regarding global climate change. The IPCC has made
significant contributions to the scientific information on global
climate change. If confirmed, I pledge to work with all of the bureaus
within the Department of the Interior, particularly the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the United States Geological Survey, and the Bureau
of Reclamation to increase our understanding of the impacts of global
climate change on fish and wildlife and to work to identify ways that
we can address those impacts.
Question 3. As part of the restructuring due to funding shortages,
the Fish and Wildlife Service is shifting staff and resources to ``high
priority'' refuges. The Wildlife Refuge System prides itself on having
at least one wildlife refuge in each of the 50 states, and one within
an hour's drive of every major U.S. city.
How should the FWS appropriately determine which State's fishing
spot is highest priority, and which local wildlife viewing site is
lower priority? Doesn't this mean that some refuges are going to be
unmanned? What do you plan to do about this?
Response. While I have not had the opportunity to fully study the
staffing situation in the National Wildlife Refuge System, I do
understand the importance of the System to the public and to our fish
and wildlife resources. If confirmed, I will commit to being an
advocate for the system, and to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to help ensure that our national wildlife refuges are
effectively managed to meet mission obligations and to continue to
provide visitors with quality wildlife-dependent recreation
opportunities.
Question 4. Records from the State Board of Great Outdoors Colorado
(GOCO), which provides State funds to the Department, raised questions
about the adequacy of the Department's financial system. News reports
in the Denver Post in February and March of this year and internal
documents and other information indicate that, for example, ``the
accounting/finance staff of Parks at all levels was unable to
articulate basic accounting principles involving the GOCO bills.'' I
understand that an audit of the department was initiated at least in
part in response to these problems. Please describe in detail what the
accounting problems were that GOCO identified, what specific actions
you took to address those issues both before and after GOCO identified
them, your role in recommending or approving the audit, the specific
issues to be reviewed in the audit, and what results if any have been
reached in that audit.
Response. The following deficiencies were identified and addressed
as part of GOCO's concerns for accounting: underperforming staff were
identified, GOCO's data needs were clearly identified, and proper
quality controls were created to ensure the long term success of this
relationship.
A number of events transpired in late 2005 and early in 2006 that
significantly impacted the Division's GOCO accounting and reporting
activities. Since none of these factors were reflected in the Denver
Post article, it is important to provide the context leading to the
actions that have addressed the issues.
The Division experienced several significant changes in the
Financial Services (FS) unit. Based on very serious performance
deficiencies, the CFO began addressing performance accountability. The
Controller and a lead accountant both resigned their positions early in
2006. The CFO had to rely on the GOCO accounting tech to perform the
necessary GOCO billing and reconciliation tasks until more senior
accounting personnel could be hired. After a lengthy hiring process,
the new Division Controller assumed his duties in June of 2006. The CFO
immediately assigned him the tasks of evaluating and improving the GOCO
billing and reconciliation process.
Under the ``Guiding Principles'' that the GOCO board enacted to
define the Division's policy in how to prioritize, spend and account
for GOCO funding resources, there was a stipulation that ``old'' GOCO
money had to be spent before ``new'' money could be spent.
This triggered a massive effort on the part of State Parks in
December 2005/January 2006 to reallocate expenditures at Cheyenne
Mountain from newer GOCO grants to older grants and Lottery funds. It
was imperative for the process to be completed to release funding so
that construction on Cheyenne Mountain could proceed without delay.
Parks staff worked closely with GOCO on this process and brought it to
a successful conclusion. This was a complex task with a large number of
grant budget lines, contract awards, task orders and payments involved,
where the process and the results would ultimately have to meet both
GOCO and audit standards.
The Division's CFO scheduled meetings with GOCO's CFO and
accounting staff to solicit input from GOCO on how to improve the
reporting processes, given the Division's personnel situation. The
desired outcome was to define the reporting requirements--different for
base and large scale projects--that would meet GOCO's reporting and
audit needs.
A meeting with GOCO staff in August 2006 produced a substantive
agreement on this issue and the Division worked diligently to produce
these work products, both interim and permanent. The products included
a temporary set of ``payment adjustment record'' forms for the Cheyenne
Mountain Golden Triangle contract, which was due and delivered to GOCO
in September 2006. The fact that a difference existed between some
invoices submitted by contractors and what was ultimately paid to the
contractor caused GOCO great frustration. In the summer of 2006, this
became a major issue ultimately involving the DNR Controller.
The DNR Controller communicated in a letter to GOCO on June 20,
2006 that it is not uncommon in the construction industry for
disagreements to arise regarding project completions. Payments are
determined on the basis of the project manager's assessment of the
quality and acceptability of materials furnished, work performed, and
the rate of progress of the work, all interpretations of the plans and
specifications, and the acceptable fulfillment of the contract.
Payments are not made on the basis of the contractor's subjective
assessment of these same issues as reflected in invoices. Thus,
payments are made on those items where there is agreement and, where
there is no agreement, the balance deferred and subjected to further
resolution and/or negotiations.
The DNR Controller concluded, based on the terms of the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) between the Division and GOCO that the MOU only
requires a monthly billing statement to GOCO, identifying the total
expenditures to date, along with copies of the Colorado Financial
Reporting System (COFRS) accounting reports to support the amount
billed to GOCO. She also concluded that, since COFRS is the official
financial record of the state, information contained in the accounting
reports should be sufficient for GOCO to make the determination that a
vendor has been paid by the Division, and that reimbursement from GOCO
to the Division is due. In a follow-up e-mail from GOCO's CFO, she
referenced additional documentation requirements contained in the
Legacy/Large Scale grant agreements--correctly so--and State Parks has
responded to these additional requirements.
State Parks agreed to develop a single format for pay sheets that
would include a ``payment adjustment record'' and be used on all
legacy/large scale funded grants such as Cheyenne Mountain, St. Vrain
and future projects. Division staff continues to consult with GOCO
staff in the development process of format to assure that GOCO
accounting data needs are met. The Division Controller met with the
GOCO CFO and accounting staff the week of November 13, 2006 to develop
even closer communications and cooperation in defining these and other
needs.
Another work product requested by GOCO and delivered by the
Division was expenditure by fund and year for Cheyenne Mountain since
the inception of the project. This was requested by GOCO to review
match funding for legacy/large scale projects. This report was
generated in short order and delivered in its final form to GOCO on
October 5, 2006, with a positive reception by GOCO's CFO. On September
13, 2006, the Division's CFO and GOCO's CFO agreed that GOCO would pay
the May and June bills with the understanding that the Division would
be providing with the July and subsequent billings, a summary billing
statement with a formula error corrected. The Division's GOCO
Accounting Tech and seasonal staff spent considerable time
(approximately three weeks) and effort, in an attempt to isolate and
correct the formula error, without success. At that time the Division's
CFO decided that it would be better to re-develop the billing summary
in an MSAccess format. This would eliminate the error and add
additional reporting capabilities to adjust to possible future GOCO
requests for changes in reporting detail and formats.
GOCO was informed of this decision and the impact it would have on
receiving the July and subsequent GOCO billings completed and
submitted. It should be noted that the summary spreadsheet with the
formula error was developed by Division GOCO accounting staff no longer
with the Division.
Just after this effort began, in the third week of September, the
Division's GOCO Accounting tech had to attend to a critical family
issue that demanded her full attention. She was out of the office for
nearly four weeks. Although she tried to work on the report at home as
time would permit, the effort was seriously delayed. Again, GOCO was
informed of the situation and the consequential impact on the
Division's ability to meet its time commitment on the billing summary
report and associated July and subsequent billing submittals. The
Division eventually met with GOCO to present the draft MSAccess report
on Monday, November 13, 2006 and to discuss the submittal of July,
August, September and October billing reports.
The CFO has met with his FS Management team to define and pursue a
strategy to cross train available staff and build process redundancy
within the organization. He has also expressed his intent to add a much
needed quality control and assurance component to the GOCO billing
process. The addition of another budget/accounting FTE in fiscal year
2007-8, requested in the Division's fiscal year 2007-8 FTE Decision
Item, and recently approved by the legislature, will add much needed
staff to implement these changes.
After the review and a subsequent meeting on November 16, 2006,
with the Division's Controller, GOCO's CFO agreed to accept the
Division's July, August and September billings with the currently
available backup and to manually adjust any inconsistencies as done
previously. The Division would get the substantial outstanding revenue
recorded in COFRS, and GOCO would get the funds transferred and off
their books. The Division agreed to have the billings completed and
submitted to GOCO by November 30, 2006. The Division's October GOCO
billing would be submitted no later than December 14, 2006.
The Controller worked essentially full time to resolve the GOCO
impasse and develop a billing and reconciliation process, with
supporting documentation and reports to meet GOCO's billing
verification, reconciliation and audit requirements. He was assigned
the primary lead on all GOCO accounting and financial interface and
communications events and activities. The Controller has successfully
resolved the GOCO accounting and reconciliation issues, which led to
successful approval and release of the fiscal year 2007-2008 spending
plan.
In summary, filling critical positions, such as the Division's
Controller and Lead Accountant with skilled and highly qualified
individuals, combined with defining reporting needs with GOCO has
successfully addressed these concerns. In a February meeting with the
Executive Director, prior to the GOCO Board meeting, I recommended that
we ask the State Auditor to conduct a performance audit to ensure that
the Division's internal controls were in order. This recommendation was
a proactive effort to review our existing internal control systems and
determine if there were other improvements the Division should take,
such as training, staffing, and project management.
I understand the audit team has met with Department of Natural
Resources and Division personnel to define the scope of the audit. The
audit team is currently assessing the Division's established internal
controls as well as the financial management systems and processes.
Since the team is in the fact finding state, I am not aware of any
results, conclusions or recommendations.
Question 5. GOCO has stated that the Department's Controller has
``extensive personal relationships with senior management within State
Parks that may cloud the situation and provide a perception issue from
an audit perspective. To complicate this is that the current CFO also
had a personal relationship with the Director. It has been our
experience during our annual financial audits that these types of close
personal relationships raise red flags and can impede internal control
effectiveness.'' Please respond to this statement and please explain
whether you participated in the hiring process for the Department's
Chief Financial Officer or Controller, and whether you knew either of
the individuals prior to interviewing or selecting them for these
positions.
Response. The meaning of ``extensive personal relationships'' as
referenced in the GOCO statement is not clear to me. I do attend the
same church as the Division's Controller and CFO. I see them on most
Sundays before or after worship services. From my association with both
of these individuals, I believe they both demonstrate the highest
standards of professional and personal integrity.
I was the selecting official for the Chief Financial Officer. The
State of Colorado has a very rigorous and structured personnel testing
process. The Department's Human Resources division manages this entire
process. Human Resources issue vacancy announcements and screen the
applicants, to determine which candidates meet the minimum
qualifications. Following that screen and evaluation, Human Resources
administer and score a written test. The test questions are developed
by the Human Resources division based on the position description.
Following the scoring and evaluation of the written test, the
candidates go through an oral test, with a panel of Human Resources and
subject matter experts from other divisions in the Department. From
this panel, generally the top three candidates are then submitted to me
for selection. Individuals involved in this evaluation panel included
the Department's Budget Office and the Department's Controller and the
Department's Director of Human Resources. This panel developed the
recommendations and submitted three candidates for me to consider. It
was at this point, and this point only, that I saw the selection
options. I had no knowledge of which candidates successfully passed the
written test. I had no knowledge of which candidates the oral testing
panel interviewed. After interviewing the three candidates, I selected
the Chief Financial Officer. I considered his qualifications,
background, and the needs of the Division based on the position
description.
The Division's Controller followed the same process described
above. After interviewing the top three candidates, the Chief Financial
Officer asked the staff of the Financial Services Unit to make the
final selection of the Division Controller. They did so.
Question 6. In April 2007, the Denver Post reported that you
purchased a horse to participate in activities sponsored by an elite
social club, and that after officials questioned this purchase you sold
the horse to your son-in-law. Please explain in detail the purpose of
the purchase and sale, how the purchase and sale process and amounts
paid for these articles is consistent with State purchasing, bidding
and sale of asset rules, and what advice you received from state
officials and from whom regarding the purchase and sale.
Response. The horse was not purchased to participate in activities
sponsored by an elite social club, but by the Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation to establish an equestrian program for a variety of
park operations, including visitor contacts in our urban parks as well
as backcountry patrols in our mountain parks. The primary objective of
the mounted ranger patrol was to provide officer presence to the
busiest areas of our large metro parks. Other park and law enforcement
agencies have found that a mounted ranger provides a highly effective
tool for positive visitor contacts.
The value of a mounted ranger has been tested throughout the
country in metropolitan communities and urban parks. Large park areas,
like Chatfield and Cherry Creek, with large open space and extensive
trail systems are settings where mounted rangers can patrol more
effectively than rangers on foot or with motorized vehicles. Other park
units and law enforcement agencies reinforce the effectiveness of
visitor contact with a mounted ranger.
In 2004 the Division conducted a series of town meetings throughout
the State to receive public input regarding state park facilities and
services. Based on input the Division received during the town
meetings, the public ranked trails and trailheads for hiking and
horseback riding as a very high priority. Having park managers ride
with equestrian organizations in the field to discuss State park
trails, trailheads and corrals is extremely effective, as we have
learned from participation in similar activities with hikers, ATV and
snowmobile organizations.
The purchase was consistent with all State procurement regulations.
I personally met with the Department Controller and discussed the
equestrian program in the Division's park operations. We discussed the
program benefits and advantages of a mounted patrol in our metropolitan
parks. Subsequent to that discussion the purchase order was reviewed
and approved by the Department of Natural Resources Contracting
Officer.
Following a budget briefing, a member of the budget committee
expressed a comment regarding the horse that I felt could possibly put
some of the Division's programs at risk. I discussed the comment with
the Division's executive team and determined selling the horse was the
appropriate action.
The subsequent sale of the horse was consistent with state property
disposal regulations. The sales contract was reviewed and approved by
the Department's Contracting Officer and Controller.
Question 7. Earlier this year, we joined other colleagues in a
letter to Secretary Kempthorne expressing concern about weakening
changes to the rules for the Endangered Species Act which the
Department was considering.
It is my expectation that before any regulatory changes, including
any changes that would amend the ESA's key protection, such as habitat
designations, the listing process, scientific standards, and
interagency consultation, are proposed, the subcommittee will be
briefed on them and given a chance to review them well in advance of
any formal proposed rulemaking. Do I have your commitment to do so?
Response. As I mentioned to your staff during our meeting last
week, I am a believer in open dialogue. While I have been generally
briefed on past versions of the draft proposal, I look forward to
learning more about it. I am also not aware that a decision has been
made to finalize or publish anything to date. I am aware that U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Director Hall has provided general briefings on
this issue and I advised that it is the Department's practice to brief
committees of jurisdiction in advance of all significant actions,
including key points of major rulemaking proposals. If confirmed, I
will ensure that this is done for the Committee, should the Department
decide to issue proposed revisions to these rules.
______
Responses by Lyle Laverty to Additional Questions from Senator
Lieberman
Question 1. Earlier this year, we joined other colleagues in a
letter to Secretary Kemptorne expressing concern about weakening
changes to the rules for the Endangered Species Act which the
Department was considering.
It is my expectation that before any regulatory changes, including
any changes that would amend the ESA's key protection, such as habitat
designations, the listing process, scientific standards, and
interagency consultation, are proposed, the subcommittee will be
briefed on them and given a chance to review them well in advance of
any formal proposed rulemaking. Do I have your commitment to do so?
Response. As I mentioned to your staff during our meeting last
week, I am a believer in open dialogue. While I have been generally
briefed on past versions of the draft proposal, I look forward to
learning more about it. I am also not aware that a decision has been
made to finalize or publish anything to date. I am aware that U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Director Hall has provided general briefings on
this issue and I advised that it is the Department's practice to brief
committees of jurisdiction in advance of all significant actions,
including key points of major rulemaking proposals. If confirmed, I
will ensure that this is done for the Committee, should the Department
decide to issue proposed revisions to these rules.
Question 2. The endangered species program is currently
experiencing at least a 30 percent vacancy rate and in some areas that
rate may be close to 50 percent, undermining its ability to recover
species, respond to stakeholders in a timely fashion, and list species
in need of protection. How will you address the backlog of candidate
species proposed for listing, but still unprotected by the Endangered
Species Act? How will you address the delays in the development and
implementation of species recovery plans?
Response. I have not had the opportunity to review in detail the
staffing situation in the FWS's Endangered Species Program. However, I
believe that it is important to be responsive to stakeholders and work
with them to undertake conservation measures that prevent the need to
list species, as well as to implement conservation measures designed to
recover those species that have been listed under the Endangered
Species Act. If confirmed, I commit to working with the FWS to better
understand and address the challenges facing the Endangered Species
Program.
Question 3. The Interior Department has recently been troubled with
the interference of professional staff and the undermining of
scientifically based decisions. You said science should drive policy
and that you would set minimum performance and ethical standards to
ensure that these sorts of actions do not continue. Can you
specifically outline these standards and the steps you plan to take to
make certain that the best available science is used to drive the
implementation of the Endangered Species Act?
Response. If confirmed, here are the actions I will take to ensure
that science is not suppressed or improperly edited and that the best
available science is used in our decision.
Immediately, I will ask the Solicitor's Office and the Designated
Agency Ethics Officer to brief the staff on the rules and regulations
with regard to the protection of and disclosure of information received
by the Office.
I will affirm that discussion with my pledge to staff and employees
of both agencies, the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, reiterating my personal commitment to the ethical
standards of conduct and behavior articulated by Secretary Kempthorne,
including not sharing non-public information with outside parties.
Second, I will ensure that my staff understands the difference
between questions of science and questions of policy. I will explain
that my policy staff is not to ask for or direct any change or
modification in scientific findings by either agency.
I will explain that any contacts they have with field personnel at
either the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Park Service
regarding questions of science must and will be through established
organizational channels, and only with my prior approval. I will
actively monitor agency performance with and through both agency
leaders.
Third, I will establish a code of conduct for employees to treat
people with dignity and respect. Abusive behavior toward anyone will
not be tolerated.
Fourth, I will actively engage in conversations with agency
leaders, Directors Bomar and Hall, and agency employees to monitor
performance. I will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that
organizational performance is meeting expectations. I will make it
clear that:
Contact between my policy staff and agency personnel on
management or regulatory actions will go through established
organizational channels;
I expect bureau directors to personally ensure agency
decisions are supported with credible scientific information that, as
appropriate, is peer reviewed;
My policy staff is not to ask any of the agency staff to
change scientific findings;
No staff, policy or career, are to act abusively toward
any person, and if there is any indication of inappropriate behavior,
it is the Director's responsibility to inform me immediately;
Bureau directors are to personally advise their management
teams of my expectations for each of them regarding these principles;
and
Any violations of these principles are to be reported
immediately to me personally by the agency director for appropriate
action.
In the event of any violation of these principles, I will not
hesitate to ensure that appropriate action is taken.
______
Responses by Lyle Laverty to Additional Questions from Senator Cardin
Question 1. During your tenure as the head of the Colorado State
Parks system you made a concerted effort to modernize camping and cabin
facilities. Many attribute the 7.6 percent percent increase in
attendance at Colorado State Parks in part to these modernizations. In
Maryland, the Patuxent Wildlife Research Refuge covers 12,900 acres
between Baltimore and Washington DC. The site is in serious need of
modernization and repair. How would you work with the Department of the
Interior and OMB to ensure that Patuxent and sites like it obtain long-
term commitments to facilities improvement?
Response. As I mentioned during our meeting prior to my hearing, I
am not familiar with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's facilities
management plans or its capital/maintenance investment strategy to
date. However, if confirmed I will work with the Fish and Wildlife
Service to determine this project's priority within the Service's
maintenance program. With strong supporting information, I will
advocate for a strong investment program to support the mission and
goals of the refuge system.
Question 2. Smith Island is Maryland's only inhabited island. The
northern section of the island complex includes the Martin National
Wildlife Refuge. This refuge is critical for myriad species of
waterfowl and wildlife. However, accelerating shoreline erosion is
threatening the refuge as well as the island's population. We have
secured funding to help ameliorate the immediate problem on Smith
Island by constructing an offshore segmented breakwater. However,
continued attention is needed to save the Refuge and the inhabited
sections of Smith Island. How would you approach the erosion problem in
Smith Island and areas suffering similar erosion problems? What do you
believe should be done to save wetlands and underwater Bay grasses such
as those in the Chesapeake?
Response. As I mentioned to you in our meeting, I have not had the
opportunity to review the various concerns that have been raised
regarding the erosion issue at Smith Island, so I am not in a position
to comment on specific recommendations regarding this situation.
However, I do believe that the restoration of wetlands and related
habitats is important in many areas, including the Chesapeake Bay. If
confirmed, I will work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
address the conservation and protection of wetlands and other important
habitat such as underwater Bay grasses in the Chesapeake Bay.
Question 3. Maryland is working hard to reduce excess nitrogen and
phosphorus inputs into the coastal byways. Output from the Assateague
Island National Seashore wastewater treatment plant is a significant
contributor to the problem. To address this problem, Assateague Island
National Seashore has been provided funds to make modifications to its
wastewater treatment plant. However, the process has stalled at the
Dept. of the Interior. What would you do to make sure that those
bureaucratic hurdles that remain are successfully surmounted?
Response. As Assistant Secretary, I understand that ultimate
responsibility for ensuring that such facilities in parks or refuges
comply with any applicable state requirements will lie with me. I look
forward to taking on that responsibility. As I mentioned during our
meeting, while I am not familiar with the details of this matter, if
confirmed I will work with the National Park Service to determine what
has delayed the project and to ensure that it continues to move
forward. I will work with the National Park Service to examine all
options to identify available funding or to seek new funding through
appropriate National Park Service funding programs to complete the
project.
______
Responses by Lyle Laverty to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. Implementation of the Endangered Species Act is very
important to this Committee. During your career how have you been
involved in implementing the ESA? What do you believe the role of the
Assistant Secretary in implementing the ESA?
Response. Since the enactment of the Endangered Species Act, I have
been involved in the design, coordination and implementation of natural
resource management activities that integrate habitat protection with
the goal of recovering species.
As a Regional Forester, I worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the State Division of Wildlife on the recovery of the lynx
in Colorado. For the past several years, reintroduced lynx have
successfully reproduced, an indication that agencies working together
can make a difference in the recovery of endangered species.
Ten years ago I served on the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee,
coordinating agency activities to support the recovery of the grizzly
bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Today, that grizzly bear
population has been delisted, an excellent example that agencies
working together, seamlessly, with public support can make a difference
in the successful recovery of species.
As Forest Supervisor of the Mendocino National Forest, I worked
extensively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff and the
California Department of Fish and Game successfully managing the
complex southern portion of spotted owl habitat.
I believe the role of the Assistant Secretary is to commit personal
energy and coordinate agency resources to achieve the stated purposes
of the Endangered Species Act. If confirmed, I will work aggressively
with other Federal land management agencies, States, tribes, private
land owners and other nongovernmental organizations to further our
Nation's conservation goals.
Question 2. Last year, the Supreme Court in its Rapanos decision
correctly limited federal regulatory jurisdiction of waters of the U.S.
The Fish and Wildlife Service oversees several programs that partner
with landowners, play an important role in the preservation of our
environment, and are critical to the President's goal of an annual
wetlands gain. Do you agree that programs like Partners for Fish and
Wildlife that work collaboratively can be very successful in preserving
the environment without a confrontational, regulatory approach that
often leaves landowners feeling that their rights have been violated?
Response. I completely agree that programs like the Partners for
Fish and Wildlife program can be extremely valuable in protecting
habitat. It and other cooperative conservation programs promote
partnerships with States, landowners, and other citizen stewards to,
among other things, protect and enhance habitat for threatened and
endangered species. If confirmed, I will work with U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Director Hall to continue the success of such
partnership programs.
Question 3. During the course of your professional career, how have
you reconciled issues of science and policy?
Response. As a professional resource manager, I have found that
issues of science and policy can be reconciled through clear and open
discussions at the beginning of a project. The leadership role of the
line officer or project manager is to, at that point, bring all
parties--scientists and resource specialists--together and clearly
articulate project objectives and science requirements associated with
the project site. I have found that, in my past positions, the most
significant aspect of my role as the deciding officer was ensuring that
my team was complete and that questions of science and policy were
openly discussed as the foundation of the project design.
Question 4. Mr. Laverty, during the question and answer period, you
made some comments about the Fish and Wildlife Service activities
regarding a potential penguin listing. Specifically, you said ``they
are in the process now of gathering public comments on that. That also
would be expanded into a 12-month status review.'' The FWS announcement
that the petition to list penguin was found to be warranted was July
10. You appeared before this committee on July 17. Your response to the
question about penguins suggests that the FWS has already made up its
mind to propose listing of these species after only one week of
official comment and well in advance of gathering any data to assess
penguin populations, threats to their existence, regulatory mechanisms,
etc. This greatly concerns me. Can you please provide detailed
information as to where the FWS is in the process with the penguins and
explain what information you received that would suggest that the FWS
will indeed take the next step in proposing to list the penguin
species.
Response. During the question and answer period, I unintentionally
misspoke when commenting about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
activities with respect to a potential penguin listing. Under the
Endangered Species Act, the first step in considering a petition is to
evaluate the information presented by a petitioner, after which the
Fish and Wildlife Service is required to make a finding on whether the
petition provides substantial information to indicate that listing may
be warranted.
In fact, with the Fish and Wildlife Service's July 11, 2007,
publication of a 90-day finding that listing may be warranted under the
ESA for 10 of the 12 petitioned penguin species, the Fish and Wildlife
Service is now only in the earliest stages of conducting a status
review. At this time it is my understanding that the Fish and Wildlife
Service has not determined whether any or all of these penguin species
warrant inclusion on the list. Through a 60-day open comment period,
the Fish and Wildlife Service is gathering information to assist in
evaluating the status of each penguin species under review and, after
reviewing public comments, will make a decision as to whether or not it
should propose to list any of the penguin species based on the best
available science and commercial data.
It is my understanding that a positive 12-month finding for any of
these species, if made, would trigger a second 12-month period for
public comment and scientific review of a proposed listing rule before
a final decision is made on whether to designate any or all of these
species as threatened or endangered.
______
Response by Lyle Laverty to an Additional Question
from Senator Voinovich
Question. The 2006 National Park System Advisory Board report,
``Charting a Future for National Heritage Areas'' emphasizes how the
National Park Service can benefit from welcoming the National Heritage
Area approach to conserving nationally important landscapes and
cultures. What approach and strategy will you utilize to implement the
recommendations in this important report so that National Heritage
Areas are included within the family of the National Park Service?
Response. National Heritage Areas support the Department's mission
to work in partnership with local communities to promote, protect, and
interpret resources and tell the stories of our national heritage. I am
familiar with National Heritage Areas in Colorado, and am generally
aware of the Advisory Board's report and recommendations. I understand
that the Administration has previously transmitted a legislative
proposal to provide this program with clear criteria and standards for
management planning, among other things. If confirmed, I look forward
to continuing to work with Congress on this very important issue.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Mr. Laverty.
We are going to start the questioning period, so people can
have 5 minutes. I am going to give any Senator that didn't make
an opening statement 7 minutes, so they can have a little extra
time.
Mr. Laverty, your comments are music to my ears. I really
think the spirit in which you gave them is very important to
this committee on both sides.
There was an article July 9, ``U.S. Officials Looking to
Protect Ten Penguin Species. The Bush administration is
considering an endangered species protection for ten penguin
species whose polar habitat is shrinking due to global warming.
The Fish and Wildlife Service said that listing `may be
warranted,' and initiated a formal status review which is the
first step in the process of listing a species. This would put
the penguins on the same path as the polar bear.'' This is the
report that I have.
Are you aware of this? Have you been briefed on this
situation yet?
Mr. Laverty. Yes, ma'am, I have.
Senator Boxer. What do you see the timeframe for both the
polar bear decision and the penguins decision?
Mr. Laverty. Madam Chair, there are basically two different
time lines right now.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Mr. Laverty. For the polar bear, the polar was listed as a
proposed listing and they have received public comments on
that. The action by the Agency is to come up with a
recommendation in December. That is on the polar bear.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Mr. Laverty. The listing on the penguin as a result of a
petition was in fact the 90-day listing. They are in the
process now of gathering public comments on that. That also
will probably expand into a 12-month status review by the
Agency.
Senator Boxer. I see. Very good. Well, thank you for that.
I want to talk to Kristine. I noticed, and of course all of
us did, the earthquake in Japan that involved some type of a
leak from the nuclear power plants there. Without getting into
whether it is a problem or not, because I certainly don't have
the facts to know, I am only reading news reports, one of the
things I noticed in California, and it is just mind-boggling,
is when these great, big, giant projects come up, for some
reason, whether they are great big dams or nuclear power
plants, for some reason, they come up, they are right near
earthquake faults. I just don't--I think this is something that
we ought to be concerned about.
So I guess my question is pretty simple. Would you commit
that as you look over these applications, and I know that
Senators Carper and Voinovich will be looking very closely,
this is their jurisdiction in the subcommittee, and I greatly
respect that, I wanted to know from you, is this something that
you will carefully look at as these applications come forward,
the geological situation, and ask questions from the scientists
about the earthquake potentials?
Ms. Svinicki. Yes, Senator, clearly seismic considerations,
as you've mentioned, are an important consideration, not only
in your State, but anywhere in the country that we have faults
and other seismic conditions. That needs to be analyzed against
both a realistic case and a worst case scenario. Those need to
be informed decisions.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much. My other question is,
during their investigation, GAO's fake company was unable to
obtain sealed radioactive sources from the State of Maryland.
They tried first, they went to Maryland as a sting operation.
Because the State said a site visit would be necessary before
materials could be issued.
Now, the NRC does not require a pre-license inspection for
a licensee to receive a Category 3 type of radioactive
material. If Maryland has determined that a pre-license
inspection prior to receipt of Category 3 materials is
necessary, why hasn't the NRC? Do you know? If you don't know,
is this something that you will consider bringing up if you are
confirmed?
Ms. Svinicki. Senator, I was able to watch a certain amount
of the hearing that was conducted on the GAO sting
investigation. I was exposed to an amount of Commissioner
McGaffigan's testimony. He was the NRC witness at that hearing.
I know that he has pledged to look at this issue.
So it would appear to me as an outsider that it will be
something that the Commission will be evaluating, since
Commissioner McGaffigan has made that commitment to do so. If
confirmed, I certainly would be a part of that.
Senator, I was reflecting, in your opening comments where
you talked about national security aspects of nuclear
materials, I certainly, if confirmed would bring a strong focus
on our vulnerabilities to my service as Commissioner.
Senator Boxer. Good. I am very pleased. Just think about
Senator Warner sitting on your shoulder, because it is just
ridiculous to think about our rules being weaker than the State
of Maryland. It blows my mind.
Last question. I understand you have worked in the
Department of Energy's Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
Office. Did you work on transportation and waste disposal
issues related to Yucca Mountain?
Ms. Svinicki. Senator, thank you for that question. I want
to be as clear as I can with the committee. When I worked at
the Department of Energy I was employed in what is called the
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. That is the
office established under law to administer and develop the
geologic repository. My work was not in Las Vegas on the Yucca
Mountain license application, it was in Washington, DC at the
Department of Energy headquarters.
I worked transportation packaging. As you had mentioned in
your opening comments, the safe transportation of these
materials is so important. Whether a geologic repository opens
or not, we have to transport materials this week and every week
very, very safely. I also worked on inventories of defense
materials that may require deep geologic disposal. Those would
be materials currently at Department of Energy sites.
Senator Boxer. So you didn't work directly on Yucca?
Ms. Svinicki. I did not.
Senator Boxer. OK, very good. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Kristine, you and I briefly discussed in my office the
highly enriched uranium spill at the Nuclear Fuel Services
facility in Tennessee and my disappointment with the NRC's lack
of communication about the event. In your current capacity as
staff to the Armed Services Committee, you also understand the
need to protect sensitive information that could aid our
adversaries who might want to use it against us.
If confirmed, will you ensure that the national information
security needs are adequately protected and balanced with the
NRC's need to improve public communication? Maybe any other
comments you might want to make about the Tennessee event.
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you, Senator. I do recall that we
discussed the Erwin, TN spill of material and I commented to
you that it struck me just in reading reports and summaries of
the event that it was a very serious matter. I had been taken
aback with something of that seriousness, that the
notifications were delayed.
I don't know the cause of the delay in notifying on that
incident. But I confirmed to you and I would confirm that those
are the types of matters that I think, if there is any threat
to public health and safety, that people need to know about.
I also do acknowledge, as you have mentioned, that post-9/
11, Government-wide, there has been a consideration of what is
appropriate to post on Websites and the appropriate balance
needs to be struck. These are difficult issues, to find that
balance, but I would pledge to do that.
Senator Inhofe. All right, thank you. We also talked about
the fact that the NRC is going to be receiving a lot of
applications under the new reactor licensing program. My
concern is you don't get bogged down. We want to preserve the
safety and the security, and we want to have applications
reviewed efficiently and expediently. I just hope that you will
do that. Any comments as to your intentions in terms of keeping
things going?
Ms. Svinicki. Senator, I recall that we discussed the
challenges of this matter. I think any time that something
hasn't happened for many, many years such as the NRC has not
been confronted with a new license application for so many
years that this will be challenging process as we move forward,
not only to continue excellence, as they need to do in
regulation of current facilities, but to be able to resource in
terms of people and human resources that they will apply to the
new applications they are getting. This is going to be a tough
challenge that I referred to in my statement. The tempo is
going to go up and they need to continue to do a good job.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, back some 10 or 12 years ago when I
chaired the Clean Air Subcommittee, at that time it had been 12
years since there had been an oversight hearing of the NRC, and
things were in need of oversight. We actually put deadlines on
dates. This is something you can't do when you are looking at
these applications, because no two cases are alike. But I just
hope that you keep things moving along, because I think we all
agree that we are going to have to get these things approved.
Now, Lyle, it was music to my ears when you said something
about the fact that you want to extend courtesies to these
people, the stakeholders and other people. This is something
that you don't see very often and you don't hear from people. I
am glad that you have.
One of the programs that you and I talked about that I just
feel very excited about was this Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program. We had hearings out in my State of Oklahoma, Mr. Hall
was there, and I introduced legislation after that hearing. The
President has signed it. This is the type of thing that
Government, in my opinion, should be doing, working with the
property owners. All so often, they think that someone, if you
are a landowner, that you are there trying to abuse, you are
trying to pollute, you are trying to not take care of the
wildlife.
But I think this partnership program, that started out as a
pilot program, is tremendously successful. I would like to hear
your comments about that partnership in wildlife program.
Mr. Laverty. Senator, I believe that working with
landowners becomes the essence in how we are going to manage
the wildlife resources of this country. A major proportion of
wildlife habitat is not on Federal eState, but it requires and
demands that kind of a working relationship with private
landowners.
I think we need to do all we can, and I think this is what
Dale and his group are working on and trying to create that
kind of an environment, that can make it a working relationship
with the private landowners to further conservation causes in
terms of protecting wildlife species and habitats. It becomes
critically important to be able to have incentives that can
help landowners do that. It should not be perceived as a
penalty, if you will, for doing some things to protect wildlife
habitat. I think this is some of the goals and objectives that
the partnership program is all about.
Senator Inhofe. I agree with that. Since my time is running
out, let me just ask you, you commented that you have several
actions that you want to take and you named four. Are there
others? Is your list longer than four?
Mr. Laverty. Yes, sir. I think first of all, is to be able
to sit down with the staff and understand kind of the feeling
of the staff. It has really been under intense pressure. I
think you need to understand, what is the staff feeling about
the issues that are facing the staff as it relates to the IG
report and then look at recommendations and solutions that can
be driven from a staff perspective.
The protection of science is absolutely fundamental. I just
can't say it strong enough that that is the foundation of good
public policy. You need to have good science. I think Madam
Chair talked about the importance of having good science. Then
you debate the policy. I want to be able to help facilitate
that.
Senator Inhofe. That is good. Thank you very much. Thank
you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Carper, you get 7 minutes.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
To our witnesses, welcome, congratulations on your
nominations. If I could start with you, Ms. Svinicki. Is it
true that you once worked for a Member of Congress?
Ms. Svinicki. I have had the privilege of serving three
Senators; I currently serve Senator McCain, before that Senator
Warner and Senator Craig, two members of this committee.
Senator Carper. That is pretty good. So you have a pretty
good idea of how we work around here, or don't work, I guess.
Ms. Svinicki. I do, sir.
Senator Carper. We don't work well together sometimes. This
committee I think maybe being an exception to that.
I want to talk with you a little bit about communications.
But before I do, I want to reflect back on something the
Chairman just said regarding the ability of GAO in the scam
operation to counterfeit a license that would have enabled them
to acquire substantial amounts of low-level radioactive
materials that they could cobble together and maybe create
enough oomph for a dirty bomb.
I go back to that, I am an advocate of nuclear power, I am
also an advocate of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I
don't know how we reduce that dependence without a whole lot of
things, more solar, more wind, cellulosic ethanol, biobutanol,
more energy efficient appliances, more energy efficient cars,
trucks or vans. I also believe it is impossible to move
meaningfully toward energy independence without a greater
reliance on nuclear energy.
Every now and then, something comes along that gives us a
scare. We had one of those just a week or so ago with respect
to the GAO's scam operation. I said at the hearing, which I
chaired in part, I said that everything I do, I know I can do
better. I used to implore my cabinet, when I was Governor of
Delaware, and my staff now here in the Senate, with these
words, if it isn't perfect, make it better, if it isn't
perfect, make it better. None of us are perfect. God knows I am
not, and we all make mistakes.
The latitude that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has for
making mistakes is more narrow than that which falls on the
rest of us. One mistake, one oversight, one slip in the work
that the Commission does cannot just create maybe a difficult
situation in a nuclear power plant, maybe an embarrassing
situation, what it may do even more is undermine the
confidence, which has just now I think resurged to support,
within the population, and within the Congress, confidence and
support for nuclear energy. So I would just call on you as a
soon to be new member of the NRC, that you adopt as your own
this adage of, if it isn't perfect, make it better. Hold the
folks that you're over, looking over their shoulder, just hold
them to the very highest standards every single day. Vigilance
is the watch word. To the extent you can do that, and Senator
Voinovich, in our role as co-chairs of the Clean Air and
Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, we will be there with you.
In fact, we are going to meet tomorrow morning, I believe,
with the Chairman of the Commission. One of the things we are
going to talk about, and this is my question, and I will ask
you just for a brief answer, one of the things we are going to
talk with him about is communication. When something goes
wrong, we don't want to read about it in the paper, we don't
want to hear about it in the news. We want you or the chair to
be telling us what is going on. We haven't had the kind of
communications, in all instances, that we need. I would just
ask for your thoughts in that regard.
Ms. Svinicki. Senator, thank you for those comments and for
that question. I think that public confidence in a regulator is
absolutely essential. I think transparency and communication
are a keystone in building that confidence. That would be a
focus of mine if I were confirmed, to increase public
confidence.
In the process of my courtesy calls, a question was posed
to me which was, who has the biggest stake in making sure that
nuclear power is safe. I think it is proponents of the
technology who should have the highest standards for safety and
security of these installations. I agree with that point, and I
would pledge to you, Senator, if confirmed, to work on
continual improvement, as you said, if it is not perfect, make
it better, of communications.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
Mr. Laverty, congratulations on your nomination. Thank you
for your willingness to serve. I received a letter from a
fellow named Charles Saulk, as we call him, Chas, in Delaware,
he is the director of the Delaware Division of State Parks and
Recreation. He is someone we hired when I was Governor, we
hired him to run our parks operation. He wrote to me and really
denounced your nomination. I happened to be walking by his home
in Delaware, it is a small State, I was walking by his house
and he came out on his front porch just to tell me what an
awful guy you are, and he said, the last person I would support
would be Lyle Laverty.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. So what have you done to make him feel that
way about you?
Mr. Laverty. Senator, I appreciate the comment. I believe
that the conversation is focused on the issues related with Ms.
McDonald and the ethics in the Department. That is what I am
committed to work on, to do all I can.
Senator Carper. More seriously, he actually had very
positive things to say.
Mr. Laverty. Thank you very much.
Senator Carper. Maybe I have seen in the letter, and even
on the front steps of his house, he had good things to say
about you, about a week ago.
Mr. Laverty. Chas is good.
Senator Carper. Chas has worked with us, along with a lot
of people in our State, to try to make Delaware the 50th State,
the 50th and last State, to actually have a national park. We
are the only State in America that has no national park. We are
not even a unit of a national park. We have been working on a
process through gathering public opinion in our State, creating
a proposal that has been endorsed by a congressional
delegation, submitting it to the Park Service. Mary Bomar was
by and met with me from the National Park Service last week.
Lynn Scarlett, Deputy Secretary of the Department, was in
one of our wildlife refuges with us this last weekend. So we
had a chance to chat with her.
Mary Bomar, who is the head of the National Park Service,
does she report to you?
Mr. Laverty. Yes, sir.
Senator Carper. Oh, good. How do you feel about Delaware
being the only State in America that doesn't have a national
park?
Mr. Laverty. I think you ought to have one.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I move the nomination----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Laverty. There was no other answer, was there?
Senator Carper. We worked long and hard, we appreciate the
chance to work with all you guys to finalize and fund the
feasibility study and move it on. I think standing right behind
you is Rob Horwath. Rob was good to help us as we were moving
our feasibility legislation through the House. I acknowledge
him and thank him for that. We look forward to working with
you, too. Thanks so much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I would like to just followup on comments some of my other
colleagues have made with this issue of communications and
transparency, we are in a unique position today where because
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we are ready to launch, well,
we have 12 applications, for sure, 28 reactors. We are getting
some good vibes back from the environmental community that they
are not as opposed to this as they had been in the past,
because of the fact that they are so concerned about climate
change and nuclear power doesn't emit these greenhouse gases.
On the other hand, I think we have to be very careful about
this communication issue. I was after Nils Diaz, and I have
talked to Chairman Klein about it, and it just seems they don't
get it. One thing I would like you to do is comment on that,
and you have done it so far, but I think we need to really have
someone hitting this very, very hard. Because I think it does
hurt the credibility of the Agency and could be the reason why
some people aren't going to be as supportive as they should be.
The second thing, and this is something that Senator Carper
and I are going to probably be talking to Chairman Klein about
this week, is that we need to make clear to the public that
these facilities, the 103 reactors, almost 104, in terms of
earthquakes and that are not, that are not subject to
earthquakes, in other words, they have been built in areas
where we are not going to have a Japanese problem.
So I would like you to just share with us once again your
attitude toward this communication. We went through Davis-Besse
here, and it took us a long time to recover from that. I would
like your thoughts on that, because as I mentioned in my
opening statement, it is wonderful that you have had the
perspective from Congress.
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate returning to
this point, because it is such an important one. I would hope
that with my background and being such a closer observer of the
most recent policy debates on energy, environment, on the
resources we will need to meet our future energy needs, I hope
that I will bring a unique sensitivity to public awareness, to
communication.
I probably should not tell a story about Senator Warner,
but as I reflect upon something in my service with him, it is a
story related to North Anna, in Virginia, and the consideration
of the construction of additional units at that site. The
Senator came back from being in that part of the State and he
asked me to come over to his office and he said, ``Why is it
when I go to these communities and I meet with members of the
public, they are so unaware of what is potentially planned or
the process that the NRC would use to evaluate such an
application?'' He expressed to me his frustration about that.
So I would like to pledge that I would be uniquely
sensitive to that. I appreciate your focus on it, and if
confirmed, would work on that very heavily.
Your second point on earthquakes I think is actually tied
to the first. I think if the public understood more thoroughly
how applications are evaluated that their confidence would, for
better or for worse, at least be an informed decision and
position that they might take on having these facilities
located nearby to their communities. So I think that the two
are linked. The basis would be understanding.
Senator Voinovich. Are you also aware of the fact that if
we are going to launch this new effort in terms of nuclear
power in the country that there is a challenge in regard to the
issue of human capital?
Ms. Svinicki. Yes, Senator. As you had mentioned and
referred to earlier, that is one where I had said in my
statement it was a daunting challenge and I felt challenged. I
think the human resource issue is tough. Anyone who would come
and testify to this committee that that is something that is
easily dealt with is probably creating a false sense of
confidence. That is going to be a tremendous challenge. This
country does not produce the numbers of scientists and
engineers that we need. NRC would be competing in that same
environment for those folks. These are very tough problems,
Senator.
Senator Voinovich. I would suggest that you again review
the flexibilities that you have in terms of hiring these people
and make sure that you have everything you need to get the job
done. I would be interested in hearing from you, should you be
appointed. Thank you.
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse, you have 7 minutes.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Chairman.
I wanted to ask a few questions of Mr. Laverty, if I may.
In February 2005, as you probably know, the Union of Concerned
Scientists surveyed scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service
and found pervasive political interference in science at the
Agency. Two-thirds of the scientists who responded to the
survey, 303, were aware of cases in which Interior Department
political appointees interfered with scientific findings.
Eighty-four scientists reported that they were directed to
inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from
agency scientific documents.
Now, we disagree on a lot of things up in this building,
and everybody is entitled to their own opinion. But they are
not to their own science and they are not entitled to their own
facts. What will you do to guarantee that interior political
appointees will keep out of improper meddling in scientific
facts and determinations?
Mr. Laverty. Senator, thanks for that question. I really
believe that that has been one of the fundamental elements that
I have wrestled with as I have read through the Inspector
General's report and thought about, what would I do in that
position. I believe it goes back to what I shared earlier with
the committee in my remarks, you have to set the expectations
that science is science and that you deal with policy issues as
a separate conversation. You have to do everything you can to
secure the culture that presents good science.
I think that comes from active involvement in working with
staff, with scientists to create that expectation that this is
the way science will be developed, and that from the political
side, we let science come together and then you deal with the
policy issues as a separate entity. I think you have to
articulate that, but then you have to constantly monitor, do
you feel that science is coming up forward. I would like then
for that Union of Scientists to come back and say, in the
Department of Interior, science is good science and it is not
being suppressed. I think that comes from leadership and I am
willing to jump in to do that. I am committed to doing that.
Senator Whitehouse. OK. One of the reasons I ask is because
just a few months ago, the Interior Inspector General wrote a
fairly scathing report, chastising former Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Fish and Parks Julie McDonald, who I believe
would have reported to you had she stayed on, she resigned, as
you know, a few weeks after the report was released, for
habitually rewriting and distorting scientific documents.
Although obviously she has since resigned, that problem of
political interference remains a serious concern. I urge you to
try to put that behind the Department.
One of the things that is very important to the people of
this country is to be able to count on their departments of
Government. We are neck deep in a huge disarray over at the
Department of Justice. Let us not have the Department of
Interior follow that path. We want to be able to count on you.
Mr. Laverty. Yes, sir. I am committed to do that.
Senator Whitehouse. Very good.
Thanks, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator. Senator, what I
would like to do is, Senator Whitehouse, put into the record
the two-page summary of the Union of Concerned Scientists
survey, so it appears in the record with the questions. I will
mention it in my closing statement.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much for bringing this to the
committee.
[The referenced material follows:]
Senator Boxer. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Svinicki, congratulations. There is a concern of the
folks in Jackson Hole, WY, it has been a continuous concern and
it has to do with the issue of potential radiation discharges
from the Idaho National Energy and Environmental Laboratory.
What role does the NRC play in that, in ensuring that those
discharges do not occur, and then there is another role, I
guess from the Department of Energy, so what role would you
play?
Ms. Svinicki. Senator, the Idaho National Laboratory is a
Department of Energy facility and as such, under the Atomic
Energy Act, it is not regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. I believe that the State of Idaho would have, in
terms of air emissions, would have Clean Air Act authority over
that facility.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. I know that you, from your
work in Idaho, you are certainly aware of the concerns in
Jackson Hole. I just wanted to express those again today, so
that in your, while not specifically in the authoritative
position, you know that those concerns continue from the folks
in Jackson Hole. Thank you.
Ms. Svinicki. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Laverty, if I could, a couple of
things. I know this committee doesn't have jurisdiction over
the national parks, but you will. The people of Wyoming do have
some serious concerns about access to the national parks,
specifically Yellowstone National Park, and specifically winter
access. Perhaps in another venue, I would appreciate the
opportunity to sit and visit with you specifically about winter
access to Yellowstone Park.
Mr. Laverty. I would be very, very happy to do that, and
share with you what the Park Service is doing right now in
terms of that analysis.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
A couple of other topics. As you know, brucellosis has been
eradicated from the State of Wyoming, except in the wildlife
populations. We have it out in livestock, but not in wildlife.
It is a problem in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park.
Last weekend, I spent time at the National Elk Refuge visiting
with the biologists there.
I think that eradicating brucellosis should be a top
priority for the Park Service. What is the Park Service going
to do to help try to eradicate brucellosis and to ensure that
the disease doesn't really spread beyond the boundaries of the
Park into our livestock?
Mr. Laverty. Senator, I know that the Park Service is
working closely with the State Division of Wildlife, as well as
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to look at that very issue.
My involvement came as my time as a regional forester with the
Rocky Mountain Region. I know that they are doing that, I can
get you an update on what the status is of that. I can't tell
you today what that is.
Senator Barrasso. Then there are other concerns that if
Wyoming happens to lose its brucellosis-free status, there is
clearly economic hardships. Who should bear those, the
individual, the State or the Federal Government? Because it is
from the national parks that that would be lost.
Mr. Laverty. It is one of those wicked questions. It
becomes one of public policy and how do you deal with that kind
of an issue. I think it comes from conversations on how do we
work to correct the issue, rather than trying to patch up what
happens after.
I would be happy to get some more information for you on
that.
Senator Barrasso. We can visit about that as well.
Then the last question would have to do with the Endangered
Species Act. It seems to me that there appears to be a bias
toward listing species and one against delisting. The Canadian
gray wolf is a perfect example. The gray wolf flourishing in
Canada was still reintroduced by the Federal Government in
Wyoming over a decade ago. In my opinion, all the recovery
goals have been met a while back, but the species continues to
be listed as endangered. This is a process that in my opinion
has dragged on too long, and I read that you have significant
experience with the grizzly bear. That has successfully been
delisted. People in Wyoming are delighted with that, but
believe that that process took too long.
So what reforms do you suggest to the Endangered Species
Act, specifically what can be done to streamline the delisting
process?
Mr. Laverty. Senator, I think you captured for me what the
essence of the Endangered Species Act is all about, and that
is, the recovery of species. We need to do all we can to bring
folks together so that we can in fact manage, whether it is
habitat or whatever it might be, that can help recover species.
That is exactly what happened with the grizzly bear.
I think with the wolf, I think it just is going to take
some conversations, again, with the State and Fish and Wildlife
Service to look at what do we have to do to get to that point
of recovery of delisting of recovered species. We should
celebrate those. We just delisted the eagle. I think those are
significant milestones. We need to be working aggressively to
protect species, protect habitat.
But we also should be working on how do we move toward the
recovery of species. It becomes even a greater challenge, as we
talked about some of the issues that are in front of the
country today, with growth and development and climate, all
these factors are coming together to create an extremely
complex scenario on how do we manage the species. I am
convinced that we can do that, and I am happy to work with the
folks in Wyoming on the wolf. I know that is a big issue.
Senator Barrasso. Well, it is. Thank you very much, Mr.
Laverty. I look forward to visiting with you. Congratulations
on your nomination.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Laverty. Thank you, and congratulations to you, sir.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Laverty, thank you for laying out the
real serious issues that we all face together. But one of them
we can control very directly, and that is a staffing crisis at
the National Wildlife Refuge System. They have lost 230 staff
between 2004 and 2006 and project a further reduction of 335
positions, equaling a 20 percent total reduction. The number of
refuges able to afford non-staff costs including viewing
platform and trail repairs is in decline.
So how will you keep the refuges open to visitors and safe
while protecting resident wildlife in their habitats if you
don't have the key staff? Will you help us on this? Because I
just want you to know that this Congress passed a budget that
would give you the money to restore, but the President has said
he is going to veto all these appropriation bills.
So I guess, not to put you in a delicate spot, because that
is not the purpose of my question, will you let the facts be
known to those in the OMB and so on, so that they understand
what happens when we don't have enough staff to run these
important programs?
Mr. Laverty. Madam Chair, I believe that again, one of the
primary responsibilities of this position is to be the advocate
for these programs.
Senator Boxer. Good.
Mr. Laverty. I am also, I should tell you on the other
side, I understand the challenges of dealing with budgets.
Senator Boxer. Right.
Mr. Laverty. Even as I dealt with the National Fire Plan,
the huge costs of that, and then what that brings to, how do
you balance that with other programs. I am willing to commit to
being that advocate and I think the answer to your question,
again, is one of those very wicked questions, because there is
not an easy answer. But I think you have to look hard at, are
there ways that you can in fact provide those services and
still maintain the quality of what the refuge system is all
about. It takes hard work to get down into those questions.
I know that the agencies and the refuge system are looking
hard at operation plans on how they can in fact manage within
those budget levels and still provide those kinds of services.
I would be willing to work with all of you on that issue.
Senator Boxer. I know this is a very tough thing to ask
nominees, because you are agreeing to a position and your
Administration will decide their budget and the Congress our
budget, and then at the end of the day, we have a give and take
and you have to deal with what comes out.
But my view has always been, regardless of whether it is a
Democratic President or Republican President, it doesn't
matter, I like the people who are taking these jobs to be
advocates, so that if Kristine feels we really need to pay more
attention to the way we give out these permits, as an example,
so that we don't get really stung, not just a make-believe
sting, but we get stung by some Al Qaeda operative here, and
she feels strongly that she will tell the powers that be, look,
I know you have other considerations, but if we don't have X
number of positions, we can't do it. That is what I really hope
to see, because I think that is key here.
We are going to have some very tough debates. You know,
nobody likes these arguments. It is very unpleasant. But if you
are spending, I think it is now $10 billion a month in Iraq,
and this has nothing to do with your hearing and I don't expect
any response, there are pressures now on the rest of the budget
that have to be recognized.
So let me say that there are just two matters of business
that I have to ask you, two more questions that are required.
So first, I will ask you, Kristine, are you willing to appear
at the request of any duly constituted committee of Congress as
a witness?
Ms. Svinicki. Yes, Madam Chairman, I am.
Senator Boxer. Do you know of any matters which you may or
may not have thus far disclosed that might place you in any
conflict of interest if you are confirmed in this position?
Ms. Svinicki. I know of no such matters.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Robert, I would ask you the same. Are you willing to appear
at the request of any duly constituted committee of Congress as
a witness?
Mr. Laverty. Yes, ma'am, I am.
Senator Boxer. Do you know of any matters which you may or
may not have thus far disclosed that might place you in any
conflict of interest if you are confirmed to this position?
Mr. Laverty. No, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. All right, well, that is very good. I would
make one last point on the issue that Senator Whitehouse
raised. He always raises, I think, gets to the heart of the
matter. I don't know if you have seen this Union of Concerned
Scientists survey.
Mr. Laverty. Yes, I have seen it.
Senator Boxer. You have. I would just point out that they
talked to 1,410 scientists, went to 1,410 scientists. But in
any case, half of all scientific staff reported morale as poor
to extremely poor and only .5 percent, half a percent, half of
1 percent, rated morale as excellent.
Now, getting to know you just a little bit through this
hearing, I think you really do have the temperament and the
attitude and the love of your work that you can change this. It
is not going to be easy for you. There have been some problems.
But I sense that you are bringing that spirit to this work and
I am pleased to have had a chance to meet both of you.
If there is nothing else to come before the committee, we
stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]